Quote:
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
The moral argument for the death penalty has nothing to do with revenge, or with deterrence, or hatred against the perpetrator of the crime. It is an issue of justice. Bear in mind that we are working in ideals here, not in realities.
The prime motivation in atonement justice is the reparation for the wrong done...
So what value do we place on a human life? When that life it taken with malice, with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action, what manner of reparation is appropriate? It must be recompensed with something of equal value – a human life.-sm
|
The death penalty takes life with malice (note the anger displayed by some of its proponents), with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action. No individual or entity can retain a stance of integrity by saying one thing and doing another. "Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. We will now kill you." The dissonance inherent in this action is staggering, as well as the hypocrisy. Governments and countries must stand by the same moral values as an individual. The results of governments doing otherwise can be seen in Buchenwald, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc., etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
As with most crimes, it is not only the victim who receives reparation, but society as well. A violation of an individual’s rights is also a violation against the social well-being. In the case of murder, the victim cannot receive reparation of any kind, but that does not alter the just demand that it be paid. It is therefore received solely by society, in the form of the state.
|
Society harms itself by condoning acts of violence. If a government of a people sanctions violence, the individuals under that government will recieve the message, subconsciously at least, that violence is an acceptable response. The US alone among Western nations imposes the death penalty and also has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the Western World. I cannot help but wonder if our violent society is influenced by our violent government.
Quote:
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
To argue against the ideal (again, not in practice but in theory) death penalty on moral grounds, you must either argue that justice makes no demand for equal reparation, or you must argue that a life lived out to it’s natural end in prison is equivocal with a life ended prematurely – that the value of any life is only in proportion to it’s freedom. To do the first is difficult, to do the second sets up a principle that, carried to its logical end, makes the con argument even more difficult.
-sm
|
To make the first argument is not difficult at all. Atonement justice begins with a false premise: the belief that all wrongs can be atoned for. The hard truth is that many crimes can never be made up for to the victim. Their is no atonement to be made to the child who looses her virginity at 14 through a brutal gang rape. Their is no atonement to be made to the boy who grew up battered on a daily basis by his drunken father. There is no atonement that can be made to the dead or the loved ones left behind.
Justice should serve as a deterrent to further criminal acts and as a vehicle to insure that the individual is held responsible for his actions and pays their consequences. In some cases it is possible to achieve deterrance through rehabilitation programs. In the case of a sociopathic murder, there is no possibility of rehabilitation that we have been able to find. Such individuals should be locked up permanently. Work can be found for them that will defray the cost of their up-keep. Since I do not accept the premise of atonement justice, I feel no need to argue about the value of a life in proportion to its freedom. On a personal level, I will say, that given the choice between death and life in prison, I would choose death, without hesitation.