Death Penalty

FYI, please read my comment before reading this entire debate. In order for us to accept the death penalty is a valid option in some cases, it needs to be shown that the death penalty can be the ideal option in particular cases. To do this, we must first look at what the justice system is trying to accomplish. This is the maximization of justice on for both individuals and for soceity as a whole. Of course, any justice system is going to be run by humans for the foreseeable future, and so subject to mistakes. This is regardless of what punishment method the system chooses for any individual case. However, it should be noted that the system is designed to "try its best". Crimes can have more than just financial harm, and often, these other types of harms cannot be restored by monetary compensation alone. I'll use a burglary as an example. If someone breaks into a home, robs it of $600 and causes $2,900 of damage in the process has actually done more damage than the $3,500 that is measurable in dollars and cents. Their is psychological damage which is done to the family. There sence of security, which allows them to function in our society and economy has taken a hit. Their trust in their "fellow man" has also taken a hit. These do not have monetary value to them, and so cannot be recompensated in that manner to individuals within soceity. By simply making the criminal repay the damages, plus court costs, then going back on the street leaves the psychological damage unresolved. One option that the justice system has to resolve the psychological damage is to remove the element that caused the harm. By removing the element that caused "distrust," trust can start to reform, and things can start to get back to normal. Such options include prison, rehabilitation centers, house arrest, restrainning orders, or various others. With all of these options, we see that when people abuse their rights to harm others, those rights can justly be limited, or taken away. Now, one could argue, is it fair or just to take away the rights of a criminal because one person feels "unsafe" around them? To this, I'd first like to say that it isn't just one victim, it is many people in society that are harmed by it. If someone breaks into my neighbor's house and rapes them, my own view of the safety of the neighborhood is harmed and my own views of trust in my fellow man is harmed. While not to the same degree as my neighbor who was actually raped, there is still some harm done. Obviously the more serious the crime, the more that psychological harm is spread (a murder effects the communisty more than a burglary). This lack of trust and lack of safety, can be viewed as a "threat. " Threat - "A person or thing likely to cause damage or danger. " Of course, we find that the word "likely" tosses in a fun level of subjectivity, but that is up to the courts to decide what is "likely" and to what degree. Obviously, if someone has a history of doing a particular action, they are likely to continue unless something causes them to change. Simply reverting back to the conditions prior to the crime, would yield the same conditions for the criminal, and so we can actually say that they are highly likely to repeat their crime (pending the nature of the crime, their motivation, and their ability to carry it out again). Even libertarians, who we could argue value individual freedoms more than most, acknowledge that threats need to be removed and are acceptable reasons to violate someone's rights (in order to eliminate the threat). This allows us to accept that punishing criminals in manners outside of simple financial compensation. Which is needed, because a large number of crimes, financial compensation is not accurate at all. Simple example, we wouldn't accept that a murderer can simply pay the family of his victim $4 million dollars (lets say that was what was estimated as how much the victim would have made throughout their life) and walk free. So if we accept that removing them as a threat to society is an adequate form of punishment, then we must realize that permanent removal of a threat is acceptable if the threat is deemed to be never "fixable. " The only argument against this would be to believe that every single person is "fixable. " I don't believe that my opponent will make that case, so I will move on, though they are free to do so if they wish. This leaves us contemplating the two forms of permanent threat removal, the death penalty and life inprisonment. The rest of this argument will be based on comparing those two. 1) The death penalty can more accurate than life inprisonment. Prison escapes happen, again we are forced to acknowledge that we are not perfect, but that we must try our best. With all else being equal (so that the only difference is the punishment), the more years a person spends in prison, the greater the chance they will escape. Once the person is dead (either execution or old age), the chance of escapeing death is 0%. For example, lets say that with X prevention systems in place, the escape rate is 3.7 per 100,000 inmates per year (just a random number). This means that any given convict will have a .0037% of escaping this year. So if someone spends 10 years before being executed, they will have a .037% of escaping before being executed. And if someone else spends 40 years before dying of natural causes, they will have a .148% of escaping over that time. The exact numbers are .999963^10 = .0369938% and .999963^40 = .1478933% 2) The death penalty can be cheaper than life inprisonment. It is often sourced that the death penalty is currently more expensive than a life sentence, but one must wonder why? Lets use the same numbers from the previous point, that the DP goes 10 years in prision before the execution, and the LI goes 40 years before passing. Is there a reason that those first 10 years should have any difference in cost? Is it fair or reasonable to say that we can spend less on keeping murderer A locked up than murderer B if all aspects of their crime ar equal? No, the prison should be equally expensive for those first 10 years for both. How about the trial and following appeals? Is it fair or reasonible that just because someone gets life (again, assuming that all other aspects are equal) that they get less appeals? Or that they get a less qualified lawyer? Or that they get an unequal trial? No, if one of the justice system's goals is to be fair, than the trial cost should be equal and not dependent upon the punishment method. This brings us to the last part of cost. If the trials are equal, and the first 10 years are equal, we see the only difference is the actual execution vs the last 30 years for the life inprisonment. Various methods of execution can be done, ranging from $0.13 for a single bullet and $30 worth of labor to pull the trigger and clean up afterwards, to lethal injection, of which the chemicals cost around $90.00, and then there is the labor for several people to administer and obverse to ensure things are done right. There is no logical reason that an execution (the act itself) should cost more than a few thousand dollars. The same cannot be said for keeping someone locked up, fed, clothed, and monitered for a few more decades. 3) Both are equally accurate vs innocent Since they both use the same legal and justice system in reaching the guilty or not guilty verdict, the chances of convicting an innocent are equal for both the death penalty and life inprisonment.