Ten Anti-Death Penalty Fallacies

The New American ^ | 6/3/2002 | Thomas R. Eddlem

[pageonetoo]

...Fallacy #10: No Mercy

"Capital punishment is society’s final assertion that it will not forgive." (Martin Luther King)

"It is a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he’s got, and all he’s ever gonna have." (Clint Eastwood’s character in the movie Unforgiven)

Correction: The person opposing the death penalty on these principles opposes it from worldly reasoning rather than spiritual reasoning. The above statement by Clint Eastwood’s character in the movie Unforgiven typifies this surprisingly common "religious" objection to capital punishment. The underlying assumption is that this world and this life is all that exists. It suggests that only a hateful and vengeful person would seek to take everything from anyone.

But it is not true that most supporters of capital punishment seek to take everything from the murderers. Thomas Aquinas noted in his Summa Theologica that "if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good." The death penalty for murderers, the Catholic Church’s most famous theologian argued, was a form of retributive punishment. He explained that this "punishment may be considered as a medicine, not only healing the past sin, but also preserving from future sin." Though life may be taken from a murderer, he will be better off with the punishment because "spiritual goods are of the greatest consequence, while temporal goods are least important."

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to dawn on proponents employing this faulty reasoning that perhaps a just punishment in this world would best prepare a criminal for the next.

[pageonetoo]

Why should society have to take twenty years to get rid of rubbish, such as the guy in Atlanta, who is still alive and kicking, while who knows how many are dead, at his hand? http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Resources.htm

[GSlob]

All spiritual reasoning on the subject is best done at spirit level 86 proof, for otherwise it might be a little on the weak side. 151 proof is much better, but not many could reach so strong a level of spirituality straight, without dilution. Thus the reasoning is better kept mundane and sober, far from the heights of spirituality. Essentially, since costs are high, and character reformation in the perp is practically impossible (at least here on Earth), wasting the perp as soon as possible is indeed a work of mercy [to the taxpayers].

[satchmodog9]

I look at the death penalty as being society's way of ridding itself of a cancer. You no longer get any more chances. I think the death penalty keeps the almost criminal from committing a crime, but the ones bent on crime will disregard it. It is the ultimate penalty for those who do not deserve or respect our forgiveness and leniency.

[Publius6961]

Men should be punished for their own crimes and not merely to deter others. That said, the death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes.

This is the only relevant statistic confirming undeniably that execution is the perfect punishment. Not a single executed killer ever killed another person.

On the other hand... many paroled killers have.

[Navy Patriot]

Good article, I saved it to file so I can stick it to the weenies when they try to pass their bull in conversation.

[Rakkasan1]

fallacy# 2 is my favorite. The only reason it costs more
to execute than life in prison is because the same people
who are opposed to capital punishment are in favor of unlimited appeals. It's like saying you can't cross the ocean because it's too expensive .(because the ONLY way to
cross it is by building a giant bridge)

Limit appeals to 2 appeals in 5 years or whichever comes 1st-out of time, out of luck.

[carlr]

Men should be punished for their own crimes and not merely to deter others. That said, the death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes.

On top of this there is no point arguing whether it is a deterrent or not.The fact that there is a law against murder is enough to stop a law abiding citizen.
The argument against deterrence would therefor follow that since a person broke the law,the law wasn`t a deterrence so we must get rid of the law.
There is no way to prove a negative anyway.You would need people to admit that they would have killed someone if the death penalty was not in effect to know if it deterred them or not.Very unlikely to get an honest answer to that question.

[pageonetoo]

It is the ultimate penalty for those who do not deserve or respect our forgiveness and leniency.

God will be the ultimate Judge, but here on earth, justice should be swift and merciless to these types. Here, with all the witnesses fresh, and the crime in everyone's forefront, they should convene a jury, try him, and if proven guilty, taken to the public square and A- by Hanging, or B- Firing squad. No easy drip, or even sparky!

IMO, a lot of those WOULD think twice!

[libertyman]

EXCELLENT article! But then again, it's The New American...a fantastioc magazine!

I was almost laughed out of FR last night when saying on a similar death penalty thread that I don't think the death penalty is being used ENOUGH. We were discussing the death penalty in California, & I said that I'm surprised that they still have it, being as liberal a state that it is...& for some idiotic reason, my fellow FReepers thought I wanted to abolish the death penalty.

As far as I'm concerned, let's free up prison space by pardoning all who have been convicted of non-violent marijuana offenses & eliminating the scum who have committed murder, rape, treason, & child sexual abuse.

[LouD]

The death penalty deters 100% of those who receive it from ever killing again.

That said, I would compromise on the death penalty, if the left would compromise on abortion.

[pageonetoo]

Limit appeals to 2 appeals in 5 years or whichever comes 1st-out of time, out of luck.

The only appeal should be heard by a court of judges, confirming the evidence, and the affirming the sentence. If the guy is caught in the act, why should there be an appeal? Should he be freed, if some clerk typed the wrong words? Bravo Sierra...

The last public hanging in America...

Or is you prefer, dust off "old sparky"...

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

On top of this there is no point arguing whether it is a deterrent or not.

In a way, all laws carrying punishment for wrongdoing (from death penalty for capital murder all the way down to fines for speeding) are intended as much to deter others as it is to punish the wrongdoer. Yet, in spite of the knowledge of the penalties, people still break laws at every level.

Does the fact that, in spite of harsh penalties for bank robbery, people still rob banks, mean that we should abolish prison time for bank robbery?

[Rakkasan1]

I prefer the noose. gravity always works and it's cheap.

[pageonetoo]

As far as I'm concerned, let's free up prison space by pardoning all who have been convicted of non-violent marijuana offenses & eliminating the scum who have committed murder, rape, treason, & child sexual abuse....

Why did Martha Stewart get the brass ring...after spending time in prison (even cupcake prison) and get it around her ankle? Why do others go free, after actually doing evil? Why do some guys kill and spend 12-15 years in prison, then get out and repeat...? Why do little women want to be cops (with no apologies, girls, I am a sexist pig...)?

We live in a strange new world, not brave...

Protect yourself, and your family. Don't expect the cops to show up in time to do much, except file a report! They rarely do... unless you have a little stash!

[Larry Lucido]

Another fallacy is that it's permanent. Of course, we know that's not true.

[libertyman]

You gotta remember that the Constitution doesn't prohibit the death penalty, REGARDLESS of what the USSC said when they illegally outlawed its use w/in the states back in the '60s (or whenever it was). The only limit it puts on the death penalty is that a person can't "be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/o due process of law."

What did the Founders mean when they separated the words "life" from "liberty"? What did they mean when, in a previous clause, they said, "life & LIMB"??? The latter question here is one thing I rarely hear my conservative FReeper friends discuss, but I think it should be....after all, why would they allow depriving a convict of a certain LIMB, if @ the same time, it was considered to be cruel & unusual punishment as the liberals suggest?

[adiaireton8]

Because it causes some people to think of other people as "rubbish".

-A8

[D-fendr]

One of my main objections is the chance of innocence. You can't undo the death penalty. I didn't find the rebuttals to this objection convincing in the article:

"Since reinstituting the death penalty in 1976, not one person executed in the United States has been later proven innocent as a result of DNA evidence."

I don't think there is much, if any, effort to prove innocence or guilt after someone is dead.

There has been innocence proven by DNA evidence, which is of course a good argument for the death penalty; however, it also shows the system is not perfect.

I'd favor strong penalties, strong punishment, isolation, strong prisons and actual life sentences.

[snarks_when_bored]

If I were on death row, I'd appeal my sentence on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment. Why? Because Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, is not going to be executed, even though he killed, in cold blood and with malice aforethought, as many as 50 young women over a period of decades. History reveals few crimes by private individuals more heinous than Ridgeway's murderous spree. And yet he's going to continue to breathe and to eat and to watch T.V. for years, and maybe decades, to come. Where is the justice in that?

I'm in favor of the death penalty as a matter of principle. But if a monster like Ridgeway is going to be permitted to escape it, then its administration is manifestly unjust. The death penalty ought to be applied even-handedly or else not at all.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

You gotta remember that the Constitution doesn't prohibit the death penalty, REGARDLESS of what the USSC said when they illegally outlawed its use w/in the states back in the '60s (or whenever it was). The only limit it puts on the death penalty is that a person can't "be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/o due process of law."

I am absolutely in agreement with you on this point.

What did the Founders mean when they separated the words "life" from "liberty"? What did they mean when, in a previous clause, they said, "life & LIMB"??? The latter question here is one thing I rarely hear my conservative FReeper friends discuss, but I think it should be....after all, why would they allow depriving a convict of a certain LIMB, if @ the same time, it was considered to be cruel & unusual punishment as the liberals suggest?

I've always seen "life or limb" as an idiom for suffering a very extreme fate. Do you know of any instances of people losing limbs as a legally-sanctioned punishment at the time of the founding?