I'm still on the fence when it comes to the death penalty but I lean towards the 'against' camp for all the reasons stated above. IF our legal system was infallible; IF forensic science was 100% accurate; IF we had the ability to know for sure that the convicted person would definitely re-offend with a complete lack of conscience if released back into society, then I would go along with their being 'put to sleep' as painlessly as an incurably rabid dog at the vets. (Hanging, electrocution, etc are way too barbaric and are tools of vengeance rather than justice).
Here's the sticking point: I wonder if, to avoid hypocrisy, being against the death penalty should mean, by extension, that we are against all armed conflict and use of lethal weapons by law enforcement agencies.
After all, those who are killed by the criminal justice system have at least had the benefit of a, hopefully, fair trial and pleas for mitigating circumstances have had a chance to be heard and weighed by an appointed judge. Those on the other side of armed conflict are often killed simply because they were conscripted. Those killed by police marksmen also lack trial and conviction.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not damning our armed forces nor the police - they have my deepest respect for doing unbelievably difficult work for only half the gratitude they deserve. It just strikes me that this subject can be a surprisingly complex one, morally.
no subject
I'm still on the fence when it comes to the death penalty but I lean towards the 'against' camp for all the reasons stated above.
IF our legal system was infallible; IF forensic science was 100% accurate; IF we had the ability to know for sure that the convicted person would definitely re-offend with a complete lack of conscience if released back into society, then I would go along with their being 'put to sleep' as painlessly as an incurably rabid dog at the vets. (Hanging, electrocution, etc are way too barbaric and are tools of vengeance rather than justice).
Here's the sticking point: I wonder if, to avoid hypocrisy, being against the death penalty should mean, by extension, that we are against all armed conflict and use of lethal weapons by law enforcement agencies.
After all, those who are killed by the criminal justice system have at least had the benefit of a, hopefully, fair trial and pleas for mitigating circumstances have had a chance to be heard and weighed by an appointed judge. Those on the other side of armed conflict are often killed simply because they were conscripted. Those killed by police marksmen also lack trial and conviction.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not damning our armed forces nor the police - they have my deepest respect for doing unbelievably difficult work for only half the gratitude they deserve.
It just strikes me that this subject can be a surprisingly complex one, morally.