Replies

isn't taking a life at either end akin to playing God?

Paradoxically, it is moral to take a life in order to save a life. In the matter of self-defense, for example, the principle of double-effect can be employed to justify the killing of an attacker. For example, my act of killing an attacker has two effects, it kills the attacker and saves my life. The alternative act of refraining from self-defense results in two effects, my death and the preservation of the life of the attacker. The prior scenario is preferable presuming that the attacker is attempting murder.

An argument in favor of the death penalty can be made analogously. The act of executing a murderer can have two effects, the death of the murderer and the preservation of public safety (the prevention of future murders). The act of not executing a murderer can also have two effects, the preservation of the life of the murderer and the diminishment of public safety (future deaths of innocents). The principle is attenuated however because the benefit (the preservation of life) is potential. That fact, however, is not decisive. Consider the following analogy. Suppose a man is walking down the street waving around a gun and threatening to kill people. Would you shoot him? He hasn't actually killed anyone. The act of murder exists in him potentially. Yet shooting him would be a reasonable and justifiable act.

Because it is now materially possible to imprison a murderer for life (in societies like ours) without risking public safety, some people, like the Pope, have argued that the death penalty is no longer necessary.

The act of executing a murderer can have two effects, the death of the murderer and the preservation of public safety (the prevention of future murders). The act of not executing a murderer can also have two effects, the preservation of the life of the murderer and the diminishment of public safety (future deaths of innocents). The principle is attenuated however because the benefit (the preservation of life) is potential.

Absolutely - potential, but unproven. No correlation has been found between the presence of capital punishment and reduced murder rates. For example, Houston executes more people per year than any city in the country, by far, and yet it has the 2nd highest murder rates in Texas (after Dallas, which also executes more people in a year than most states).

Because it is now materially possible to imprison a murderer for life (in societies like ours) without risking public safety, some people, like the Pope, have argued that the death penalty is no longer necessary.

There is an argument for imprisonment for life that's not a religious one - cost. It costs the public more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. The cheaper it gets to execute someone, the less likely they are to get a fair trial, and therefore the less likely we are to know if we are executing the innocent.

That is why I think Gov. Ryan was right to hold a moratorium until that part of the issue can be resolved. Judges and juries dictate the punishment for crimes, jwalsh07, not the families of the victims.