Why Not The Death Penalty...?

Guys/gals, I've been noticing that most of my fellow atheists do not agree with the death penalty. I've always been pro death penalty. When I was a godidiot I believed in it and still do. But I want to learn and grow, I really do. I'd like to understand why most of atheists don't support such thing. I notice that christian fundies and most crazed godidiots like jeezlam followers do love the death penalty, so I'd like to learn from this Saddam Hussein experience and probably change my views and feelings about it.

I want to understand why the desire of killing mass murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles and any kind of asshole that hurts badly many human beings is not part of a civil and mature atheism. I am not an specialist in philosophy or ethics, my specialty is medical science, so if you could explain to me in some kind of simplistic words (I know some of you have a very high education in these topics) your reasons why you don't agree with the death penalty from your atheistic point of view, I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.

I oppose the death penalty because it's more expensive to execute people than it it is to lock them up for life (in America at least). People can be wrongly convicted and the death penality is irreversible. Mainly, I don't like the idea that the government has the right to kill its citizens.

[antix]

I've been all over the map on this issue throughout the years, but the more I learn the more I am against it. Sometimes, though, emotion takes over and I find myself thinking "kill the bastard" But after thinking a bit more rationally I realize it accomplishes very little-- if anything at all.

As far as in the US especially, I'm with Metman. It costs a fortune to when someone is on death row. And when you factor in the costs of appeals-- which happens often-- it can get out of hand in a hurry.

[Philboid Studge]

Homocy wrote

I want to understand why the desire of killing mass murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles and any kind of asshole that hurts badly many human beings is not part of a civil and mature atheism.

Its got nothing to do with atheism, HomoCy, mature or otherwise. (Unless we talk about countries with the death penalty: except for China, it all revolves around religious-psychosis)

Three reasons, off top of my head, why I oppose (there's plenty more):

1. Many wrongly convicted, entirely innocent people have gotten the death penalty sentences.
2. It's used disproportionately against the poor and racial minorities.
3. It's applied arbitrarily.

I guess the first step is to ask yourself what is 'wrong' with murder. There are many excellent rational reasons to oppose murder, and one needn't invoke a god or moral absolutes to do so. If you think murder is 'wrong', then why is it okay if the state murders?

Im very much pro the concept of death penalty. I think in such cases as with Saddam, that is people who have without any doubt commited crimes against "humanity" as such, have simply forfited their right to live. I also believe that other mass murderers, child abusers and rapists deserve death for what they have done, but my problem here is the system and it's imperfections. There have been many cases where innocents have been found guilty, and even just one such case, where the government kills an innocent is reason enough for me to be against the use of death penality.

So, I'm for the concept, and if there was a way to conclusively prove ones guilt, beyond any shadow of a doubt, then I would advocate the death penalty vigorously. But because the system so far from being perfect, and the mere fact that it can be misused by people with wrong motives, is, for me, a strong reason to be against the practical use of it.

In cases where there is no doubt, such as evil dictators etc. then I'm in favor of it.

[Kamikaze189]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...wsspecials-hed

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0504-09.htm

Actually I am pro-death penalty but I must admit that it's opponents have valid concerns. For one thing, it really isn't much of a deterrent. Most common criminals who commit murder do so while thinking that they will never get caught. Mass murderers such as Saddam, Hitler, Stalin et al think that they are above the law and are immune from prosecution. Also, the justice system is not perfect. Anyone familiar with the operation of any governmental body knows that it is rife with corruption and gross incompetence. I still support the death penalty though as I believe that most of those convicted probably deserved it and it is still an effective deterrent with respect to repeat offences ...

[Philboid Studge]

shade wrote

In cases where there is no doubt, such as evil dictators etc. then I'm in favor of it.

The reason why Saddam swung from a rope but war criminals like Kissenger and Bush still walk the Earth with impunity has little to do with 'doubt' and more to do with who's in power.

Phillboid Studge makes an interesting point. I've done some reading about the second world war and the prosecution of war criminals. In many cases, convicted German officers behaved much the same as many Allied officers under similar circumstances. One begins to realise that the reason for their convictions was that they just happened to be on the side that lost ...

Philboid Studge wrote

The reason why Saddam swung from a rope but war criminals like Kissenger and Bush still walk the Earth with impunity has little to do with 'doubt' and more to do with who's in power.

True, and that is another reason for me to reject the use of death penalty, because of corruption and the imperfection of "the system".

Eventhough I feel no remorse for Saddam, and I believe that he deserved what he got, I was actually opposed to his death sentence. But that is another issue, which has got to do with the war in Iraq, and how Bush totally fucks the entire world etc.

[JU Mike]

I agree that rapists, child molesters, women beaters, and killers deserve the most painful death anyone can receive. However like most, I'm also aware of the fallibilities of the criminal justice system and the issue with the possibility of executing innocents. If there was a way to prove someone guilty without shout of a doubt, (as shade pointed out) then I would be pro death penalty. Until then I think it's best to hold on to that injection needle.

[Choobus]

There must be many threads about this, but I have always had a very simple approach to the death penalty: if it could be applied fairly then I don't have a problem with it. Since this is impossible, all other rationalizations are moot and it should be abolished.

I am conflicted on this topic. I used to support the death penalty, but in latter years have softened on the issue. Besides being a raving atheist, I'm also a raving Libertarian, and don't like the government killing its citizens, regardless of the provocation. I also think that human life is precious, and even criminals deserve to live the full measure of their lives, even if it's in confinement, safely ensconsed away from more civilized folks who don't want to be their victims. Even the likes of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Stalin -- all of whom were truly reprehensible people and caused suffering for millions of people -- might have deserved exile or imprisonment rather than death. As a humanist, I am beginning to believe that all human lives, from the most exalted person on Earth to the least, from the leaders of great nations to the most ignorant and illiterate tribesman in the Amazon river basin, all deserve to live their lives to the fullest, that no one or no group has the right to terminate it. But as I said, I'm conflicted about it and within a year or two may gravitate to yet another position; however, that's where I am right now.

southern_freethinker wrote

I am conflicted on this topic. I used to support the death penalty, but in latter years have softened on the issue. Besides being a raving atheist, I'm also a raving Libertarian, and don't like the government killing its citizens, regardless of the provocation. I also think that human life is precious, and even criminals deserve to live the full measure of their lives, even if it's in confinement, safely ensconsed away from more civilized folks who don't want to be their victims. Even the likes of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Stalin -- all of whom were truly reprehensible people and caused suffering for millions of people -- might have deserved exile or imprisonment rather than death. As a humanist, I am beginning to believe that all human lives, from the most exalted person on Earth to the least, from the leaders of great nations to the most ignorant and illiterate tribesman in the Amazon river basin, all deserve to live their lives to the fullest, that no one or no group has the right to terminate it. But as I said, I'm conflicted about it and within a year or two may gravitate to yet another position; however, that's where I am right now.

Are you pro-life then?

Philboid Studge wrote

Its got nothing to do with atheism, HomoCy, mature or otherwise. (Unless we talk about countries with the death penalty: except for China, it all revolves around religious-psychosis)

Three reasons, off top of my head, why I oppose (there's plenty more):

1. Many wrongly convicted, entirely innocent people have gotten the death penalty sentences.
2. It's used disproportionately against the poor and racial minorities.
3. It's applied arbitrarily.

I guess the first step is to ask yourself what is 'wrong' with murder. There are many excellent rational reasons to oppose murder, and one needn't invoke a god or moral absolutes to do so. If you think murder is 'wrong', then why is it okay if the state murders?

Very interesting Phil. That part in bold really made me re-think seriously my position regarding the death penalty. It's true. I think killing each other is barbaric and there are other ways to resolve things amongst us. So why would we give the power to the state to do it for us, huh?