Yes it does and that's not what seems to bother people about the death penalty. It's the act of killing that tugs on their heartstrings. They happily ignore the millions serving decades in prison because they didn't have the basic requirements to lead a good life.
The agenda is:
1. End the death penalty.
2. Assume someone else will help innocent people, which they largely won't.
Death penalty is supported because we think it sends the person to eternal torment in hell, not because we think it purifies them. It’s literally the opposite to what you are claiming
I don't believe they do either. For example, it's often said that the death penalty is used as a deterrent, though it is clear from the data that isn't true.
The point of the thought experiment is that innocent people are being murdered by the state from time to time for crimes they did not personally commit.
The purpose is essentially "if you are willing to put enough trust in the state to get it right every single time in capital cases, then shouldn't it follow that you be willing to put your own life on the line in the even that the state turns out to be wrong?"
They don't believe it would ever happen to them. Support for the death penalty is support for the state to have the power to end your own life, too.
Nope, because the default, prima facia, position is that killing people is bad and causes pain and requires some kind of response. That's why arguing against the death penalty is actually quite hard. Especially when faced with incontrovertible evidence (video/confessions/etc.).
No, not really. To get the death penalty you have to be either a multiple-repeat offender or do something really horrible and show no remorse. Most people who do this are arguably sociopathic and beyond rehabilitation.
No, because these people have done terrible things, and society will not allow them to be redeemed. Is it more cruel to put somebody in a box for decades, or put a bullet in their brain and get it over with? I know which I would prefer.
Three strikes laws are idiotic, as are most manifestations of the US criminal justice system. I object to the knee-jerk reaction that the death penalty is inherently bad, in all cases, under any circumstances, and if you don't think so too, you're a terrible, awful, probably racist bigot.
Consequences and punishment are different concepts, I support the death penalty in the case of egregious acts primarily from the perspective of cost and efficiency of removing an unacceptable risk to society.
I don’t need to see them tortured beforehand, as it serves little to no purpose (in my opinion).
Do you disagree with; abortions? The wars in Iraq? The animals in shelters are euthanized? People who oppose the death penalty?
Regardless, your condescending tone is insulting. And, I'm not entirely sure what to say in regards to your comment that people who oppose the death penalty have a mental illness.
Most people do not feel the same way. Also, the death penalty does not allow an inmate to choose death over life in prison; this decision is forced upon them.
There are victims and families of victims who do not support the death penalty. A documentary aired in the UK a few years ago that spoke with the family of a prison officer (Daniel Nagle) who was murdered, the perpetrator (Robert Pruett) had been sentenced to the death penalty and the Nagle family were against the sentence -- even though they believe him to be guilty of the murder.
I recognize that they’ve done a LOT of harm, but death is a harsh punishment under almost any circumstances. The death penalty seems like one of those ideological issues where people fall on one side or the other, and they pretty much stay on that side.
My perspective is: if the point is to dissuade people from committing crimes like this, it seems like a lengthy prison sentence would achieve the same thing. The harm has already been done, and killing them doesn’t fix anything. Death is just so damn final.
I have very strong beliefs about the death penalty. I believe it is the only just punishment for murder; that ALL murderers should be executed; that anything less than execution is a
grave miscarriage of justice for a crime that is so horrible the mind cannot even wrap around it. I also think that pain should be part of the death penalty... that a murderer doesn’t deserve a quick and painless death but rather a healthy period of searing agony to experience the anguish that they themselves wrought on another.
However I believe that there is too big a gulf between “murderers” and “people convicted of murderer”; that the crime of killing is so severe that doing it to an innocent person is a miscarriage of justice far graver than any underpunishment of murderers; and so I oppose the death penalty in all forms as a matter of law.
reply