Death Sentence - Best/Worst Alternative?

[Tommycat]

What makes life a right? Considering it can be taken from you at any moment, I'd think its more of a privilege.

 

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equally, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Rights are given by the state. Those rights are also at the mercy of the state.

[SW01]

@Astor

 

The example you give is a good one, and a major concern. However, in such circumstances the defence of diminished mental responsibility applies. There are also various other defences to a murder charge which result in either acquittal, or charge reduced to manslaughter, most of which originated as ways to avoid the death penalty.

 

In cases of, for example, what the Americans call 'first-degree murder' (causing death of another with the intent to kill), and especially where there is no possibility of reprieve or parole, the sentence may have an application. However, without absolute certainty of the decision, such a ruling could not be supported in my view.

 

@Tommycat

 

Bear in mind that the society of the 'Framers' tolerated the death penalty.

[Tommycat]

@Tommycat

 

Bear in mind that the society of the 'Framers' tolerated the death penalty.

I'm quite aware of the differences between that society and this one. I was simply answering the question of where the Right of life was defined in the US.

[SW01]

I'm quite aware of the differences between that society and this one. I was simply answering the question of where the Right of life was defined in the US.

 

Missed that - sorry:)

 

Just to elaborate on what I said earlier - defences to the charge of murder, as they stand, are pretty comprehensive - temporary insanity, diminished responsibility, provocation, self-defence (if reasonable), necessity. This covers a lot of the 'didn't mean to' or 'couldn't help/avoid it' type cases. What we are left with is essentially cold-blooded premeditated murder. That, in my opinion, is a case in which capital punishment is justifiable. Basically, any violent or highly immoral crime that is done with absolute intent of the outcome.

 

Evidence is key, and the main failing of capital punishment. Despite all the DNA matches and myriad tests you see on CSI which always lead to the guilty person, such evidence can easily point investigators in the wrong direction. Until we have 100% of convicted offenders being guilty in fact of the crime, it is not viable to press for execution.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I have seen some past posts asking what the State has to gain by executing a murderer and why we lower ourselves to their level...

 

It's not what is gained, but cutting our losses. I would be for an execution of a serial murderer if and only if it were indeed cheaper than life imprisonment. The justice system has so many loopholes that it ends up costing the State huge sums of money to keep a murderer in prison and provided for.

 

If you imprison someone for life, they should become indentured into servitude to at least sustain themselves. If they don't work, then they should not be fed. If they starve to death or refuse to do what they must to survive, then they killed themselves. I would NOT have life-incarcerated convicts feeding off taxpayer dollars and not being forced to give anything back. If they can provide for themselves, then I'll support life imprisonment to capital punishment almost always.