The death penalty should be abolished

"Punishments don’t have to mimic the crime to be fitting. Rape is a severe crime, yet we do not have a rape penalty. Should we have a fraud penalty where people who commit fraud are told they will be given a certain punishment, yet are given a worse punishment instead? We punish harsh crimes with a harsh yet different punishment, because there is a moral limit to how we punish criminals. If we shouldn't’t punish people with rape or fraud, than should we also not punish them with death? "True that a punishment doesn't have to mimc the crime to be fitting, but really, what other crime fits a murder committed? If someone's life is taken away, what form of retribution would be fitting besides taking the murderer's life? By simply throwing someone in jail, that's the same punishment a rapist, thief, and mugger get. The only difference is the amount of time they're locked up for. Why should a murderer be punished in the same way someone who commits a less serious crime is punished? There are ways to make rectification for any other crime committed. If you steal something, the punishment could be to repay what is stolen. For a rape victim, in the case of pregnancy, the man responsible could be required to give child support (I don't know if this is really how they're punished, but it should be). There is no way to bring a murder victim back. There is no way to "make it up" to the victim's family. "We shouldn’t maintain a penalty that potentially kills innocent people simply to make the victim’s family feel better. Also life imprisonment is no cake walk. It is a very harsh punishment. There are other, non-lethal ways to find closure in this situation, like forgiveness. "I agree that the best thing for the victim's family is to forgive the aggressor. But forgiveness doesn't mean that the aggressor gets of scot free, and it doesn't mean that he shouldn't still be punished for his actions. "All right so we are both pointing to risks that are admittedly rare. My rare risk is the execution of someone innocent, your risk is that the murderer potentially escapes and kills someone. The thing is, the threat of someone innocent dying from my risk is more direct. An innocent execution will always result in an innocent death. If a murderer escapes he or she doesn’t necessarily have to murder someone, plus in all likelihood they will soon get caught. As far as inmate murders go, solitary confinement can be an alternative to the death penalty. Also if the guard sees the murderer about to kill an inmate, I do support him using lethal force to stop the murderer. That would be an act of defense. "The problem is that police don't have foresight. Even for a murderer who hasn't escaped, the inmate may still be able to kill another inmate before a guard catches them. We have no way of knowing whether or not they will be able to succeed if we keep them incarcerated. "Abolishing the death penalty will guarantee no innocent executions. Even with those restrictions, human error will still work into the system. "I think if the evidence is overwhelming enough, such as in the case of Kermit Gosnell, the risk of human error is pretty negligible. This is why I would want it to become rare, and only in the cases where there's very little chance of being wrong. Maybe on top of the conditions I already listed, we could throw in a couple of reputable eye-witnesses. I'm not saying that many or even most murder victims should be given capital punishment. I want to avoid innocent deaths, too. But in cases where the evidence is so overwhelming that the risk of human error is negligible, it should be pursued. "Because they might not really be a murderer. If the punishment is reversible, then we can correct such mistakes. We should remember that old adage that 'The smartest man in the world is the guy who invented the eraser. ' Human judgement can be mistaken and to give it the power of life and death will result in fatal mistakes. "I understand this. But that's why we allow a jury to decide. That way it's not just one person making the decision. Sure, some innocent people have slipped through onto death row, but again, if we tighten restrictions on capital punishment, that will make it much less likely for an innocent person to be put to death. "War is a topic for another debate, but you don’t have to be a pacifist to oppose non-defensive wars. This goes back to my point of how immediate self defense is the only justification for homicide, thus even executing the guilty is not the justified form of homicide. "Sure, war is a topic for another debate. But some of the arguments against it are comparable. Innocent people die in wars, too. And wars are not an immediate defensive action. Sometimes wars are preemptive, and sometimes wars are just a result of bad blood between two nations. Sometimes wars are to preserve a way of life. There are many different reasons for war. I don't like capital punishment any more than you do. However, I don't necessarily see it as immoral as someone who kills forfeits their own right to life.