Yeah, i'm against. If it was a choice between executing the war criminals at Nuremberg along with the potential for innocent people being killed and NOT executing the criminals at nuremberg and excluding the possibility of innocent people being put to death then i choose the latter. No question.
[quote]Because the first time a person goes on trial who you believe is truly GUILTY, that argument falls flat.[/quote]
Nope. My argument is that we can never be sure enough of guilt to let the death penalty be allowed. Sometimes there's no doubt but sometimes we're just very sure and sometimes, even though we're very sure, we're wrong.
So the argument is that i'd rather let 10 guilty men live than kill one innocent man. I don't think there's really anything you can say which refutes that.
@Pikachu [quote]So the argument is that i'd rather let 10 guilty men live than kill one innocent man. I don't think there's really anything you can say which refutes that.[/quote]
When the U.S. Army put German Gen. Anton Dostler on trial for ordering the execution of American POWs, "ten men" weren't on trial. Just Dostler.
You can point to as many monsters as you want and so could i. But if we're allowed to kill people because we're sure they're guilty then we'll end up killing people who aren't guilty. I'm against killing innocent people. Simple as that.
I think too often those against the death penalty rationalize their opposition to it because they are afraid an innocent person would be executed (as no doubt there has been).
But why not just say you're "against killing people"?
What if you lost a family member to someone who you saw murder that loved one?
You KNOW they're guilty because you SAW it happen. There is no mistaken identity at stake because perhaps you were able to disarm the murderer and hold s/he at bay until the police arrived.
Would you STILL be against the death penalty if that was an option for the jury?
[quote]I think too often those against the death penalty rationalize their opposition to it because they are afraid an innocent person would be executed[/quote]
I don't think it's too often. I think it's the most unassailable reason to not allow the death penalty at all. And i think you understand that because what you keep repeating to me is "but what if we're reeeaaaal sure they did it?". Answer: Not worth it for the loss of innocent life.
[quote]But why not just say you're "against killing people"?[/quote]
Because i'm not against killing people. I'm juts as vengeful and bloody-minded as the next person. In the scenario you described i'd want them dead. But that paves the way for the deaths of innocent people and that's just not worth it. Therefore i come down on the side of no death penalty.
@Pikachu There are some that are so blatantly guilty, with irrefutable evidence stacked against them, they might as well be wearing a neon sign. Case in point being outlined the the Truman Capote book, In Cold Blood.
@Pikachu That is why it should be allowed only in cases where there is no doubt what so ever, with solid, tangible evidence that cannot be disputed, and the accused is unremorseful.
I don't think it should be allowed there either because that just sets up a sliding scale of certainty that will eventually result in an innocent death.
I'm not splitting hairs. I'm saying that if the death penalty is allowed then i WILL unavoidably result in the death of an innocent person. Even one innocent death is not worth killing a hundred definitely guilty people.
@Pikachu Death for a death has been the standard for thousands of years for unrepentant murderers, it is very logical, specially since NUMEROUS released killers have murdered again after being released from prison.
[quote] Death for a death has been the standard for thousands of years for unrepentant murderers, it is very logical,[/quote]
Actually that's a logical fallacy known as argument from tradition/antiquity. It's not a logical argument for why we should continue using the death for a death model.
