Thursday, December 15

Death Penalty Saves Lives

Eighteen. That is the number of murder that are prevented by one execution according to a recent study by Cass R. Sunstein. He makes this finding by comparing states that have re instituted the death penalty. Definitely something to keep in mind as the DP is being talked about these days.

From the conclusion:

[If these] findings are ultimately shown to be right, capital punishment as a strong claim to being not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory, above all from the standpoint of those who wish to protect life.


Do I need to say it again? Like this finding shows, being prolife and prodeath penalty is one and the same. Both protect life.

HT: CQ

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...

In light of today's information that has come out on the murder of Teresa Halbach, I am all in favor of the death penalty...now more than ever. I can't imagine the pain and suffering her family is experiencing after finding how the final hours of her life went. If the allegations against Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are true and they are found guilty, may they rot in hell for their actions. I was on the fence about this until today....I hope I have jury duty at the time this trial starts.

Anonymous said...

If anyone convicted of a capital crime were sent to prison for life with no parole, that would eliminate any need for the death penalty.

Then, if they are truly guilty, they would never be able to harm the innocent again. And, more importantly, if they were NOT guilty, there would remain the possibility of exoneration and release. Which, of course, dissappears if they are DEAD.

And consider this: if you are so eager to get all morally outraged reading the lurid details of some murder, and then calling for blood repayment of the crime, then your outrage should be TENFOLD at the thought of the State wrongly convicting and executing an innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or are you suggesting that police, prosecutors, and crime labs NEVER, EVER make mistakes?

And before you say "DNA," do a little research on mistakes in DNA tests, and police and prosecutorial malfeasance.

Anonymous said...

"If anyone convicted of a capital crime were sent to prison for life with no parole, that would eliminate any need for the death penalty."

Wrong. If killing an inmate saves lives, but keeping them for life doesn't, that means that we ARE obligated to execute convicted criminals.

"Then, if they are truly guilty, they would never be able to harm the innocent again. And, more importantly, if they were NOT guilty, there would remain the possibility of exoneration and release. Which, of course, dissappears if they are DEAD."

Ah, so POSSIBLY saving someone who MIGHT be innocent is more important to you than saving eighteen others who actually are? Wow, someone sure isn't considerable to humanity.

"And consider this: if you are so eager to get all morally outraged reading the lurid details of some murder, and then calling for blood repayment of the crime, then your outrage should be TENFOLD at the thought of the State wrongly convicting and executing an innocent person..."

Explain how we're to be more angry at the thought of the government killing a convicted criminal to save multiple others than someone kidnapping, starving, raping, and killing someone who actually is innocent? I'm confused as to why you think a criminal's more important than ten-plus good natured people.

"Or are you suggesting that police, prosecutors, and crime labs NEVER, EVER make mistakes?"

Let's say that crime labs, courts, AND police make so many simultaneous mistakes that 10% of the cases they go through are actually mistaken (a grossly high number). Say there's 100 cases, all of which end in executions. That means ten innocent people died. Without the death penalty, those ten innocents would not have died. However, 18 x 10 = 180. You've just sacrificed 180 other innocents to save those ten. Hmph...and you people say you're progressives and FOR saving innocent civilans...ha!

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with the last argument. It took me a long time to figure out where i stand on the death penalty and i can see where both sides are coming from. I would like to say that the first comment is simply a person being a cheerleader for their side, and their argument is purely emotional and very biased. In reality, nobody would completely change their view or even consider your view because its based off of pure emotion, which doesnt get anybody anywhere.

Second, i dont see why somebody who takes another person's life should still live, because obviously they have no respect for life if they commit the act so why should we spare their life and allow them to live in a prison with 3 meals a day, a bed with clean sheets, a toilet, visitors, and other luxuries that the person they killed can no longer enjoy.

"And consider this: if you are so eager to get all morally outraged reading the lurid details of some murder, and then calling for blood repayment of the crime, then your outrage should be TENFOLD at the thought of the State wrongly convicting and executing an innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or are you suggesting that police, prosecutors, and crime labs NEVER, EVER make mistakes?"

As for that i must say that everyone does die eventually... it is unfortunate if an innocent man dies but if we rid our society of those people that have no respect for life, then that's a risk i'm willing to take because we save more lives. I know the death penalty is unnatural, but it is not cruel or unusual. it is quick and painless so they dont suffer before they die.

If they are sentenced to life in prison, there is the chance of escape, or that they could harm somebody surounding them like a cell mate or a guard. They also could make contact with the ouside world through other inmates whose sentence may be ending soon. Death is the only for sure way of keeping people safe, and i would rather risk one innocent man's life than risk many others inside the prison itself.

Lucas said...

Thank you to each one of you who participated in this conversation.

The big point about what if an innocent person is served capital punishment is no different than if we put the person in prison.

If the person is innocent then there is injustice without proper earthly recompense. Either you are dead or you have just lost months/years of your life in prison that will never be returned.

But even more importantly, if someone is guilty, the death penalty establishes just punishment more than a prison sentence does. If only imprisoned, the guilty could still get out of prison by some unjust judge or law that lets them loose. However, if they are dead, we are certain that justice is carried out.

Mistakes do happen, but they happen in two ways: punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free. Both are equally wrong. Yet, the death penalty does not help or help these mistakes from happening, nor making up to an individual if the punishment is in error. It is simply the gravity of their crime that would require one over the other.