The Death Sentence - Yea or nay

The problem isn't so much the death penalty as the improper functioning of the present punishment system. Punishment for crime does not simply serve the need of a society for vengeance or retribution or even rehabilitation, it also is supposed to mark out clearly the limit of tolerance in a society for certain behaviours. That's the kind of thing we trade our complete independence for, when we agree to be part of a''society''. When people see sentences that are too light, that are not fully served, that ''go soft'' in some way or another, then the line in the sand of what is tolerable becomes vague and this disturbs a society. Sentences that do not hold the line generate desires for vigilantism, for bringing back death penalties, they generate disrespect for those who are supposed to maintain order (police, judges, ''the system''). So, by improperly enforcing the law authority is weakened by its own actions or inaction to the detriment of the whole body of society.

To the question I cannot say absolutely yes or no (which disturbs me). I have largely been against the death penalty. Criminology studies from the earliest days tend to show that it does not reduce crime. There are other factors I sometimes consider, however; not protecting society from recalcitrant and serious criminals (murderers and rapists) seems almost a form of enabling, and society then at large could be said to bear some burden of guilt when one of their members has been insufficiently punished and goes on to cause dreadful harm or death to an innocent, such as has happened far too often. I think of the little known eastern story of a bodhisattva (saint) killing a sea pirate because he foresaw that the pirate intended to kill innocent passengers on the ship. Even if one approaches such old tales as metaphors and myths, still perhaps there is something to think about in that. Stepping in to stop greater harm...
I spoke with a man once who was given the opportunity to kill the murderer of his son and who, with gun in hand, chose forgiveness instead. He was a remarkable man. It was a sobering conversation.

My issue with the death penalty isn't so much that it's harsh on the person getting put to death, more that the whole concept of it cheapens life in general. If the state is seen as killing people then in my eyes it increases the amount of people who will feel they can do that too when they feel justifiably pissed off with someone. Death follows death and I'm fairly sure that I read recently that in general countries that have the death sentence have a much higher rate of murder and violent crime than those who don't.

Doltanian wrote: »

Perhaps maybe a tiny amount but I firmly believe it would save the lives of far more innocent people be preventing crime and taking serial offenders out of circulation. Surely one or two innocent lives is a small price to pay to save lives of many.

That's all well and dandy, until it's your innocent loved one banged up and awaiting the lethal injection.

It's sick that you would go far to allow innocent people suffer to get your revenge on the perpetrator. That's really disconcerting.

On the other hand, how would the death penalty save innocent lives and life imprisonment not?