Discriminating the death penalty?

[anonymouse]

The more we punish and the harder we punish, the more criminals we get

I can recall a study done about ten years ago about a group of young, violent offenders being sentenced to a type of 'boot camp' punishment. The results of this were that the offenders, after having completed the program, were very fit and much more organized criminals than they'd been when they entered the program.

As for capital punishment, I've always believed it's the mark of a "civilized" society and its government not to condemn people to death. While it's the case that barbaric individuals do exist, institutions that deal with them should never stoop to the same barbarism, no matter how 'humane' it might be said to be. If killing is against the law then the State should not be above the law. It's a hypocritical double-standard if it is.

I know there can be a lot of 'what if it happened to you?' arguments in favor of capital punishment, and I can't answer that except to say I'd hope my convictions would stand in the face of such tragedy. What I can say by way of answering is a friend, many years ago, had an infant that died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Her husband came home to find her sitting alone in the kitchen - her baby having died hours earlier in the day. It was a terribly traumatic moment made worse by the fact the police, when they were eventually called, were of the opinion she had murdered her own child simply because she didn't immediately phone them to report the death. This kind of ignorance of the grief a mother suffers could well have resulted in her being charged and possibly convicted of a crime that carries the death penalty in some places. The point I'm trying to make is the State law institutions, as institutions, simply don't have the capability to judge correctly in all situations. This alone is reason enough (for me) to not support capital punishment.

[TomOfSweden]

If killing is against the law then the State should not be above the law. It's a hypocritical double-standard if it is.

This is one of the most common arguments against capitol punishment I hear and is rather silly.

Assault and kidnapping are also against moral law, but need to be broken by the state in order to put people in jail, try people or even avert conflict. How would wars be fought without it? How would our rights be protected?

In a state, the executive branch of the law must always themselves in some sense be above the law, or governed by another set of more liberal laws than the public. It's a condition. Otherwise we have anarchy.

Laws are based on shared morals, right? So the government will always in a sense be morally hypocritical, and need to be able to break the very moral laws they are set to protect. It's very basic and if you have problems with it then you have problems with having a state at all.

[isabeau6]

ok guys...a man kills his pregnant woman and their unborn child..why on earth? and it's in a state where the death penalty is practised..and the guy is a cop....so looks like the DP is not a deterrent at all..he is maybe or could face the DP....god killing a baby..i cannot think of anything worse..plus the baby was far enough along that she would have lived....