Considering "may be" and "in a few decades," what do you think it has to do with anything here and now? Or tomorrow? Or next week? Or next month? Or next year?

>So eliminate the appeals, duh.

China calling...

I believe the death penalty is wrong for a few reasons.

Firstly, some reasons which are down entirely to a personal view of morality which unfortunately cannot really be debated logically. I should probably point out that I am not a religious person. My view is that all humans are equal and as such I don't believe that any person should have the right to decide whether another person lives or dies because I don't believe any one person has more of a right to life than any other person. This is the fundamental reason why murder is such a terrible crime in the first place. The victim has been denied the right to live by the murderer when the murderer him/herself had no more right to live than the victim and certainly did not have the right to decide that the victim should die. By the same token, neither a judge nor a jury nor the weight of public opinion has the right to decide a person should die, and execution of anyone is just as bad as the murder itself due to the violation of the executionee's right to a natural life and also in the judge taking on the right to decide that executionee should die. Some people would say that someone who has committed a crime such as murder forgoes their rights including their right to life, I would disagree with that but even if not I think that wrongly taking rights upon yourself (such as the right to decide if someone should die) is just as big a moral crime as wrongly denying a right to a person. This is not up for debate because it is a subjective thing but I hope I have communicated my thoughts effectively.

As for logical arguments against the death penalty, the thing which influences my opinion most is the potential for miscarriages of justice. It was just in the news in the UK over the last week about a guy who has spent almost 30 years in prison for a murder that he didn't commit and there have been many others like it. Maybe that man and others like him would have been executed before their innocence could be proven. Now I know that in the USA there is a very long drawn out process of appeals and re trials before someone is executed but it is still possible that an innocent man be executed and I am sure it has happened before. In that case it is difficult to claim that the courts have acted in a manner which is of any greater moral standing than murderers themselves who kill innocent people. It certainly makes the courts almost indistiguishable from vigilante lynch mobs. Miscarriages of justice are an unfortunate and inevitable part of the justice system but at least if you haven't killed the innocent inmate first you can relase him again and give him some compensation money. It must be scant consolation to the family of a dead man that he was innocent after all.

As for the cost of keeping people in jail, what is the average term people serve on death row in the USA before they are executed? Add in the costs of all their appeals and re trials and does it really cost more than the UK system where murderers are typically jailed for 25-30 years? I am not saying that the releasing convicted killers after 25-30 years is something I agree or disagree with but I don't think the cost arguement really adds up unless you are going to severely limit the ability of an inmate to appeal which in turn will lead to more tragic deaths of innocent people due to miscarraiges of justice.

Yes, clearly killing a murderer is no worse than their killing of an innocent person. You backed up that position so well!

I am against the death penalty, but he still failed to make any distinction between the death penalty and murder. Sure you can equate the two to make your point that the death penalty is murder, but to say the death penalty is "no better" than murder without any explanation is hardly that argument.

Fancsali, my personal view is that the death penalty is murder and is no more right than a murder out on the street. However that is a subjective view and whatever argument I constructed to put that forward people with the opposite view would always disagree with me. In the first half of my post I did not seek to change other people's minds or even to put forward an argument that I thought would be most clear and convincing to other people. Instead I posted my own personal feelings -admittedly possibly not in the most coherent way- as to the most important moral reason I oppose the death penalty. I was not seeking a debate on morality because they are circular, subjective and frankly boring

death penalty can only be used when there's a 100% guarantee of a flawless justice system
; if not, its murder.
nobody has that certainty so there should be no death penalty

> Gamer wrote:

> death penalty can only be used when there's a 100% guarantee of a flawless justice system
; if not, its murder.
nobody has that certainty so there should be no death penalty

if the death penalty is wrong unless theres a flawless justice system, how is any other punishment they do not wrong unless they have a flawless system?