Originally Posted by Ryn
Death penalty is based on revenge, not justice. What do they say two wrongs don't make again...?
Moreover, statistics show that death penalty isn't effective in preventing crime. Here's a lenghty text on US law enforcement officers'
views on Capital punishment: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...5&scid=45#sxn1
In Finland last person executed under peace time law was in 1825. I'm glad of that.
That's an interesting article.
Actually, I remember reading a study that said that instead of serving as a deterent, the death penalty actually sent the message that it's ok to kill someone if he/she deserves it. Put that kind of idea in the mind of someone who has strong violent tendencies and a sick mind and you get murder...
The study actually said that in states that had re-introduced the death penalty, the rate of murder had actually increased.
I don't remember where I saw this (sorry) but the point is, I think the important thing when it comes to crime is to try to prevent it. The whole focus on the idea that "such and such a criminal is an awful person who doesn't deserve to live" shouldn't be how we decide about the death penalty. Angry thoughts of revenge will not lead us to a rational decision.
We need to look at how it would possibly make society better (by killing some bad people) vs. how it would make it worse (by possibly killing innocent people, by possibly making the crime situation worse, or at least no better)
And the idea that we should only have the death penalty for cases where we are 100% sure doesn't really mean much. When are we 100% sure?? And more importantly, who decides that? Judges? Juries? Governors? Are any of these people perfect?
anyways, that was my rant.