But if they do get out of prison - and they do have chances at parole?
Well, you don't let them out if you think they are going to kill again. Now I predict you're going to say that institutions are fallible and there's no way of guaranteeing they won't kill again. You're right. But I'd rather take that risk than have the state do the killing.
But what are morals? As you and Gary have pointed out, morals have fluctuated throughout the centuries. What is moral in one era isn't in another and vice-versa, so there aren't really any moral absolutes. There is only moral relativism. Something is moral or isn't moral simply because at the time, we say it is.
There is not "only moral relativism" in my view. Human attitudes, such as those toward homosexuality, have fluctuated throughout the centuries. That doesn't mean homosexuality used to be immoral. It never was. People just thought, wrongly, that it was. Just like slavery was never morally OK, genocide isn't morally OK, etc. -- even though some people have thought they were.
In my view, there are some moral absolutes, and one of them is that killing is wrong.
And what do you think about WWII or Bosnia? Was killing Nazis/genocidal Serbs immoral and wrong or in some cases is killing someone NOT in individual self-defense not as absolutely immoral as you say because at times it's necessary?
At times it's necessary to prevent the killing of other innocents, which to me is the moral equivalent of self-defense. Now I predict you're going to say that's what the death penalty does -- keeps heinous criminals from killing other innocents. But there are other options of what to do with heinous criminals, mainly imprisonment, because you already have them in custody. On the battlefield, other options are more limited. However, you don't kill POWs.
Yes, but you could say that about sentencing people to long prison sentences. They're innocent yet are punished for it, but I don't see the argument that because we're human and make mistakes and that all institutions are thereby flawed in some way, we need to do away with our justice system. Allowances are made
.
Yes but I'd rather wrongly sentence an innocent person to prison. Not just because of moral issues, but also because you can always release someone from prison if you find out they're innocent. If you've already killed them, well ...
As for the race issue, all that means is that the white person got off easy, not that they didn't also deserve the death penalty.
The race distinction isn't just white vs. black criminals. It's that people who kill a white person are more likely to get the death penalty than people who kill a black person. I'm not comfortable with that kind of race-influenced sentencing.
As for inadequate representation, well, if you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you get the best attorney you could afford? That's the capitalist system. You get what you pay for. To argue against that goes against what our country is based on.
Don't get me started on the flaws in the capitalist system. But in this case, IMO the state should not create a system in which personal wealth determines whether or not you're allowed to go on living.
1) you also point out that despite the highest rate of convicted felons in the world - sitting out prison sentences - that that hasn't deterred crime either.
Well, a lot of those convicted felons are there because of the "war on drugs," not because of murder.
And in any case, it's fallacious to argue that we should go ahead and use something that doesn't work just because a different strategy also doesn't work. The answer is to find something that DOES work. And in the meantime, don't kill people.
the death penalty isn't supposed to deter crime. It's merely punishment for the most heinous of killers because we don't want to punish the convicted sadistic rapist/murderer of children the same way we do a guy who has stolen one too many cars - treating his crime as no better or worse than a property crime.
Well, I would say it's worse to rape someone than it is to steal a car. Do we execute rapists, too, in order to make that distinction? Or maybe just cut off a body part? Do we have to find whole, distinctly different punishments for every category of crime?
No. The way you treat a murderer more severely than a car thief is by giving the murderer a longer sentence.
See above. We don't live in a perfect world. People and institutions make mistakes. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of imperfections doesn't make much sense.
Allowing the state to kill innocent people is a pretty big imperfection.
True, but only in countries where religion plays a key role in government - or are theocracies. Most modern countries in the West have gotten away from judging people on moral standards and as you see, the punishment for such 'crimes' has diminished until they aren't crimes at all.
Then why is marijuana illegal? The simple reason (kind of simplistic, I know, because there are also reasons involving culture and liquor lobbies and so on, but it's at least one reason) is that a lot of voters think drug use is morally wrong.
