Death Penalty

1115 Words5 Pages
First, lets talk about your initial position - no crime deserves the death penalty This position is an evaluation of moral character, not one of practicality. If we were to discuss practicality, the proper question would be no government is competent to administer the death penalty. With that in mind, we can move on to your points - Mistakes can be made regarding who is guilty. No matter how certain the evidence there is a chance that the person is still innocent. A death penalty trial costs on average of two million dollars around the same as a 40 year prison stay. The people who sentence people to death don't carry out the act themselves. it is easy to say this person deserves to die, but how many of them would be willing to inject someone. The reasons for the crime will never be fully understood by the jury, they can not decipher fact from fiction or understand the mind of the criminal. Opinions can be warped from media propaganda, and the prosecutor. These are all variations of your final question "What happens when you are wrong?" so I am grouping them as one - these questions are irrelevant to what a person/crime deserves. The question of what a person deserves is not at all the same of whether or not that can be awarded them. I believe, for instance, that teachers deserve to be paid very highly, as their work is foundational to a functioning society. The fact is, however, that teachers are paid a pittance and that is unlikely to change any time soon. All your concerns about innocence and cost amount to is saying that while some criminals may deserve the death penalty, it isn't practical to actually administer it. I hope you can see the difference between what is deserved and what is practical and affordable to give. Hypothe... ... middle of paper ... ...oint, which is very similar to the first point I addressed: Many people are put to death for crimes with a virtually 0% chance to re offend. (A political crime or treason.) The people who sentence people to death don't carry out the act themselves. it is easy to say this person deserves to die, but how many of them would be willing to inject someone. This doesn't invalidate the death penalty as a whole - its abuse or misuse doesn't invalidate the concept. The fact that some people run over others with cars doesn't make the whole concept of driving immoral. Almost all your concerns are about flaws in existing systems, that doesn't make the idea of the system or the idea of the punishment invalid. This is getting super-long, but I think I've made myself as clear as I can without more specific questions. I'm happy to answer any, or to be downvoted to oblivion. Whatever.

More about Death Penalty

Open Document