What are the arguments?---- That it is a fitting response to heinous crime, and therefore validates the system of accountability and hierarchy of values reflected in the determination of offenses.
I begin to get irritated here. For the last time, I hope: I am asking you WHY it is a fitting response, and WHY we must assume that our current hierarchy of accountability is the only one or the best one. The arguments you give are not arguments at all. They are assumptions of what has yet to be demonstrated.
I ask "is capital punishment really a fitting response to heinous crime"? You respond "yes, because it is fitting". What kind of discussion is that?
it impresses upon the minds of the populace the seriousness with which we take the administration of justice, and vindicates the moral order, and thus has a culture- forming value.
Does saying "if you do that we will kill you" carry greater seriousness or vindication than saying "if you do that we will lock you up in a horrible place with horrible people for the rest of your life"? I have seen no convincing evidence to suggest that it does.
I think one starts with the assumption that execution is a fitting response to some crimes
Again, you assume which has not been in any way demonstrated. Why should we assume that it is fitting? Tradition? Because some guy several thousand years ago wrote about "an eye for an eye"? Not convincing at all.
Why not look at the countries and states that do not execute people? Have their systems of proportional sentencing collapsed? Have their moral orders disintegrated? Have their rates of violent crime increased? Have their populations ceased to take crime seriously?
All along the line, the answers are "no".
Now look at the places which have capital punishment. Have their rates of violent crime decreased? No. Are they spending more money than they otherwise would? Yes. Are they risking the execution of innocents? Yes.
I read this equation, and the only conclusion I can reach, based on tangible, measurable, evidence, and common f**cking sense, is that capital punishment is simply not a logical alternative. It risks the lives of innocents, it costs money, and it does not accomplish anything measurable.
If you can present any practical, tangible, evidence to challenge this conclusion, please do so. But challenging the conclusion by assuming that it is erroneous won't cut it. |
