The death penalty serves a useful purpose. If life in prison is the maximum sentence, what do we do with prisoners serving a life sentence who murder a fellow inmate or guard? What other than death is a fair and just punishment for a serial killer or mass murderer? Dr. Thomas Sowell does not believe the claim that the death penalty is no…
The death penalty serves a useful purpose. If life in prison is the maximum sentence, what do we do with prisoners serving a life sentence who murder a fellow inmate or guard? What other than death is a fair and just punishment for a serial killer or mass murderer? Dr. Thomas Sowell does not believe the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and that it's used so seldom or after such long delays it's hard to tell. As for the argument that pro-life folks should oppose the death penalty, there is a difference between killing an unborn child and killing a person who has been proven guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, and whose conviction has withstood an appeal, which I believe is mandatory in most if not all states.
From a substantive justice perspective ("Is an eye for an eye good policy?") I think you are right. From a procedural justice perspective ("Can we trust the state to administer an irreversible punishment?") I must respectfully disagree. Police and prosecutorial misconduct occur all the time. Juries made up of good, honest people are misled by feckless prosecutors and unable to see evidence that has been suppressed. What should happen when new evidence comes to light after the jury has already spoken? These are massive problems with HOW America does capital punishment. Check out innocenceproject.org.
There's actually a very pro-life argument for capital punishment: if life is so valuable, then death is a just punishment for murder.
That said, I have many concerns with how criminal trials work in the US, and I'm leaning towards opposing or at least reforming when we apply capital punishment, in the interest of saving innocent people.
The death penalty serves a useful purpose. If life in prison is the maximum sentence, what do we do with prisoners serving a life sentence who murder a fellow inmate or guard? What other than death is a fair and just punishment for a serial killer or mass murderer? Dr. Thomas Sowell does not believe the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and that it's used so seldom or after such long delays it's hard to tell. As for the argument that pro-life folks should oppose the death penalty, there is a difference between killing an unborn child and killing a person who has been proven guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, and whose conviction has withstood an appeal, which I believe is mandatory in most if not all states.
From a substantive justice perspective ("Is an eye for an eye good policy?") I think you are right. From a procedural justice perspective ("Can we trust the state to administer an irreversible punishment?") I must respectfully disagree. Police and prosecutorial misconduct occur all the time. Juries made up of good, honest people are misled by feckless prosecutors and unable to see evidence that has been suppressed. What should happen when new evidence comes to light after the jury has already spoken? These are massive problems with HOW America does capital punishment. Check out innocenceproject.org.
There's actually a very pro-life argument for capital punishment: if life is so valuable, then death is a just punishment for murder.
That said, I have many concerns with how criminal trials work in the US, and I'm leaning towards opposing or at least reforming when we apply capital punishment, in the interest of saving innocent people.