Well I don't think dealth penalty should be justified in a lot of situations, not just self defense or even where killing is allowed. I think there are times people commit murder (with no legal defenses) that should not be subject to the death penalty. That was my only point . . . that I'm obviously not stating clearly. : )
The death penalty IS rare. There's been something like 4,000 total executions in the USA since 1900. I'm helping you out here, I think we are in violent agreement.
I've got mixed feelings. There are plenty of specific instances in which I have no problem with it, but as a general rule, I don't think society is capable of administering capital punishment fairly or efficiently, so I don't think we should use it. I don't mind putting unrepentent murderers of the innocent to death, but in practice it's much more expensive than the benefit society gets from it, and despite all the expense it's still not done very fairly; we generally end up executing only the stupidest murderers rather than the ones who are probably most deserving.
I'm an avid hunter, so killing things doesn't really make me squeamish. I just don't think it's something that improves our sense of humanity, in addition to the great reasons already listed. I wonder why nobody has ever argued for just sticking the worst of the worst in a big room and putting them all in medically-induced comas. I would think it'd be a lot cheaper to house them, they'd be no danger to anyone, there's no real opportunity for them to enjoy life, and if you discovered they were innocent you could always revive them. You hire one doctor and a small staff of assistants to monitor them and change bedpans/feeding tubes/etc and that's it. Could be very minimal security needed.
I don't think the death penalty can be justified as an extended form of "societal self-defense." Jailing them accomplishes the self-defense.
OK, I'll display my ignorance. Why does it cost more to kill someone than house them for the rest of their life?
Yes I have very similar concerns as well, which is why I'm probably against it. I certainly think some people deserve it, but I'm afraid of the collateral damage.
By definition, the death penalty is an extended form of "societal self defense" just as jailing people for lesser crimes is.
I disagree, since the jailing accomplishes the self-defense. Anything beyond that is unneeded for the sake of self-defense. They're for the sake of people's conception of punishment/vengeance.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If they're arrested and jailed, the laws against violent crime are enforced. I don't see why the death penalty is needed in order to enforce the laws.
If a person is indicted, put on trial, the jury finds him guilty, the statute permits death penalty, and it's awarded, then it's not vengeance or anything but enforcing the law. If the law has penalties that aren't enforced or are too soft, then the law won't be respected. Respect for the law is important to a nation of laws. This is not the "deterrent" argument, but something entirely different.
Aha. That's not quite what I meant, that awarding a statute-stipulated consequence is "vengeance." What I meant is that a society choosing to make death a legal consequence is a choice of vengeance rather than of self-defense, since death of the criminal is not required to protect the society.
Retribution is explicitly used as a justification for legal punishments like the death penalty. I could get out Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and make an argument against it, I suppose, but nonetheless it's taught as such at law schools throughout the country. Not sure I buy the "respect for the law" argument. If I understand right, you're saying, basically, "the death penalty is on the books, so if it's not used, then the law won't be respected". I'd turn that argument on its head and say that in practice it's currently used too frequently but not respected. There's something over 3000 people on death row, and it takes years to carry out an execution. The result is a situation in which criminals probably don't feel any additional deterrent from the death penalty and no one has much respect for society's abilities to enforce its laws. Hence, you'd get a lot more bang for your buck by 1) drastically reducing the scope of the death penalty punishment to the smallest number of the most horrific criminals and 2) employing the penalty fairly quickly in those cases. Like, commute those 3000+ people on death row down to life imprisonment, but then go out and execute Charlie Manson, Dick Cheney and Barney Frank quickly and publicly.
I agree that it is not a choice of self defense. But some would call it justice as opposed to vengeance.
Sure. Justice works, too. Let me put it another way, it is for an emotional reason (sense of justice being done, revenge, etc) rather than a reason of safety or protection.
Interesting take, the idea the death penalty is used too frequently. It may be, but 3000 people on death row is only relevant if compared to how many times the death penalty can be and is ordered in murder cases. Also someone mentioned due process . . . employing the death penalty fairly quickly may be infringing on their due process rights. But I get what you are saying ,and I lean more towards life in prison sentences as oppose to the death penalty.
