20 Nov '14 03:51>
Originally posted by moonbusAn interesting question is when it becomes moral, or at least not immoral, to have the death penalty. There are, in my mind at least, two circumstances that could qualify. One is when it is impossible to imprison the guilty. The thing is that in that case, at least in the West, the scenario implies that society has broken down to the extent that imprisonment is impossible so one has to ask who is doing the convicting? I can't think of a country incapable of imprisoning at least the more serious criminals so I doubt that that could viably be regarded as an excuse. The other scenario, and this I think would be a justifiable reason to introduce the death penalty, is if people took up feuding again on a wide scale. Feuds can last for centuries and leave hundreds dead. Once they've started the initial insult is sometimes forgotten over the years but the revenge cycle continues anyway. If the death penalty is going to prevent feuds, which appears justified historically, then in a situation where feuding is likely I'd regard the death penalty as justified. Although clearly that isn't the case in most of the world at the moment.
DTh: "... my problem with the death penalty is practical rather than moral. First there's the difficulty of miscarriages of justice ... I suppose you could argue that this is a moral position, but assuming there is a merit in convicting the guilty, even if they are only to face prison, one does not want the jury to find people not guilty when they are out of ...[text shortened]... on nor by any punishment. These are the ones who as often as not turn themselves in and confess.