Death Penalty

I would like to accept this argument as a challenge to my own beliefs, that is, I agree with you, but I find the basis on which you rest your argument, although totally valid, to be debatable, so I thought I might try my hand at it and see where it leads. My argument will center on attacking the presumption that human beings are somehow removed, beyond or above our natural proclivities, simply because we have the ability to rationalize our actions, or create things outside of nature. I think it is flawed reasoning to think that these abilities extricate us from nature, when it is ever apparent that we continue to be plagued by (perceivably) destructive impulses. This is dangerous, to say the least, because one cannot learn to temper that which is thought to be outside of, or separate from the self. So we are all murderers, cheaters, and rapists...as we are all capable of such thoughts and actions. We must accept this and be constantly vigilant of our tendency toward barbarity, in order to keep it in check. I will admit to being descriptivist in my perceptions about all things. Things happen, so we cannot reject them simply because we feel they should not happen, they are neither inherently wrong or right, nor good or bad, they just are. With that said, I will respond to your initial claim: I will take your terms to mean: Oudated: antiquated, obdolete Barbaric: savage in nature Hypocritical: to commit that which one claims is wrong/immoral/undesirable. Third-world: lacking/ behind in social and economic development as compared to developed or 'first-world' nations. Inhumane: cruel, lacking in compassion Unright: morally wrong Please redifine whichever terms are not to your liking. (I am known to have my own definitions for things...lol) So, I find it hard to swallow that killing a murderer is outdated, when murder still exists. If we were truly beyond this as human beings, murderers would not exist. Death by murder and death by governments is still death. One cannot be more reprochable than the other, unless you are attributing some undue civility to governments, which is folly, because governments consist of men, and those men (like all mankind) are just as capable of murder ( rationalizing it) as the defendant. Notice that I'm just placing everything on an equal plain; removing the pretenses. Barbarity/inhumanity follow the same reasoning. If the murderers are capable of barbarity, so is the government. The murderer rationalizes his justifications for killing a person, and so do governments i.e., wars, cia assassinations, land seizures/occupations, etc.). All are barbarous acts if they result in death or suffering. As far as hypocrisy, I think it much more hypocritical to say the reverse i.e., that criminals can commit heinous acts against his fellow man but that the government, or those seeking justice cannot respond in kind. On a comparitve level, i also find it hard to see how allowing a man to live and breathe in confinement until the end of his days, is more humane than just killing him. I know that this implies a qualitative judgment about life, but freedom, or lack of it, has been equated with a death sentence by many a philosopher, founding fathers included. A life constrained/ in bondage is considered no life at all, which is why so many have given their lives in the pursuit of it. And many an inmate has, or has attempted to end their life-sentence for the very same reason. You also posed points on the expense of the death penalty and how it is no good for society. I will admit that I learned from you that the death penalty is more costly then life-sentences. So firstly, thank you! Lol. But upon researching it, I found that the cost is not owed to the death itself, but rather the legal costs to pursue and defend against it, so the data, taken at face value, is somewhat misleading. But moreover I would like the expense to be haggled before the victims and their families to see if they could reconcile the cost of the sentence with the worth of a life which was taken. The resulting detriment to society that you claim is difficult to fathom. Im just wondering how the swelling rolls of 'lifers' does us any good. I can only ask that you elaborate on this, so that I can attend directly to the point you're making... And lastly, I fail to see how the comparison to developing countries is relevant, unless it based in ethnocentrism, or any other belief that we are somehow superior. if so, I can only remind you the aforementioned trap that we set for ourselves, by assuming we are somehow different... I hope you understand where I am coming from with all this. I've done my best to try to present a worthwhile counterargument, i.e., to not make it apparent that I actually agree with you albeit for different reasons. Thanks for reviewing...and, nice to make your acquaintance!