When we lock someone away for the rest of their life, we don't devote much effort to getting things right. When we decide to execute someone, we are very careful about making sure we got the right guy. It's likely that at least some of your 140 exonerated death row inmates would still be in jail today if they were sentenced to life in prison.
If the criminal justice system is broken, we need to fix it. Eliminating the death penalty won't fix it, it will just make the media talk about something else.
Sometimes notsomuch...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_...
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Injustice_in_Texas_T...
I think life imprisonment is a really bad thing to have happen to you, only marginally better than death. I'm honestly not sure I'd prefer life imprisonment to death at all, in fact. I also don't object to either one as punishment for the worst criminals.
That's my moral stance.
On to practicalities: lots of people hate the death penalty and will devote effort to making certain the wrong person is not executed. These people will not devote the same effort to preventing wrongful life imprisonment. Similarly, a wrongful execution is an outrage, whereas wrongful life imprisonment barely makes the news.
Thus, I see the choice as the following: some number of wrongful executions, or some larger number of wrongful life imprisonments. I prefer the smaller number of people who wrongfully lose their life.
That is less and less the case, given the collapse of local/regional investigative journalism, and also spectacularly unequal. The press or non-profit organizations should not be put in the position where it is responsible for providing a robust defense for people accused of capital crimes.
The fact that there is such inequity in the manner defense is provided against prosecution makes me completely against the general practice of the death penalty, given the possible injustices it may render when weighed against the possible justice it may mete out against truly heinous crimes.
There are too many instances of prosecutorial malfeasance or justice denied to continue with the death penalty, even in cases where the guilty parties certainly deserve to die (Bernardo and probably Homolka, in Canada).
Holding their children hostage would provide a really good incentive. Would you then recommend that as well?
I understand where you come from. But providing incentive does not justify murder. Even state-sponsored murder.
This makes no sense. My moral claim is that the death penalty is morally equivalent to life imprisonment. Since the issue here is differentiating between two acts I believe to be morally equivalent, I prefer the action with the lower probability of harming innocents.
When faced with a choice between harming innocent children and not harming innocent people, I obviously recommend not harming innocent children.
If, however, the choice were between holding the children hostage until they die, or merely killing them, I can't say I'd express much preference. If I were the potential victim, I'd probably prefer getting killed.
And if my odds were 80% get killed, 20% exoneration, I'd strongly prefer that to 90% stay in jail for 60 years, 10% exoneration.
Just curious - could you explain why you believe locking a person in a cell until they die is better than killing them?
There may be some moral equivalence between a person who dies in prison and one who is executed (I would argue otherwise) but there is absolutely no moral equivalence between an innocent person executed and an innocent person who spends some time in prison and is freed.
"Just curious - could you explain why you believe locking a person in a cell until they die is better than killing them?"
Because they might be innocent? Or because killing them is used disproportionately against the disadvantaged?
