What are others opinions on the penalties applied for serious crime in our society? I was surprised recently on the forum when one of the more progressive posters, a truly enlightened bloke, informed me he was in favour of the death penalty for terrorists. My opinion is I oppose the death penalty in all cases as it is nothing more than state sanctioned murder. In places where the death penalty has been applied there is no evidence that it has deterred the committing of serious crimes. History shows that more innocent people have been executed in the name of justice than actual serious offenders.

Yes, it stops repeat offending.

Dear Paul,

My reply may also surprise you as well.

I too agree in bringing back the death penalty for
heinous crimes. People who are psychopaths - and
get pleasure out of killing are beyond help. They
do not deserve being put to death in a humane way
A choice they did not give their victims. I would
need to hear good reasons as to why these animals
deserve to be kept alive

My main reason for opposing the death penalty is that I have little faith that government can be sufficiently accurate in its decision making as to be 100% certain that every execution was justified.

Government, being the collective decision of fallible men (and woe-men), inevitably get some things wrong. Society can be no more debased than wrongly executing an innocent man - and it will be men who get killed.

That said, it is wrong to say that "there is no evidence that it has deterred the committing of serious crimes." Indeed there is ample evidence eg http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=295576
and a series of follow-up studies which showed that each execution reduced the murder rate by 5. But the data is equivocal with other studies showing the opposite.

Currently we convict based upon the premise of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that's not good enough for certainty - ask Linda Chamberlain. If we were to have a further level of 'beyond any doubt' then the death penalty might be possible. But that is a very high bar and is unlikely to be reached.

mhaze said it well.

Issy, you must agree with Pol Pot, it is reasonable to execute nine innocents if it means one guilty is eliminated.

The vast majority of those executed by the state for "serious" crime have not been mass murderers, a small percentage, but rather those perceived as having acted against the regime (French Rev), or having committed criminal offences brought on by social conditions (Colonial times). In places where the death penalty is popular (USA) there is no evidence of a reduction in serious crime. What is achieved by executing offenders, other that some perverse satisfaction for society.

Hi Foxy, you did surprise me, but many would agree with you. I do understand that position.