1. It's open to hideous, terrible abuse. The death penalty is the tool of choice for oppressive political regimes and social movements. It's a handy way of quashing dissent and getting rid of people your society doesn't like for whatever reason. This is true in all countries that use it. Consider the United States: in Texas, people on death row are often there thanks to completely incompetent court-appointed defense lawyers with no experience in such cases (rather than the experienced public defenders that are vital in such a system) - and do I really need to mention the race issue? You can tell me all you like that your own government would never allow such a travesty to occur (or be perpetuated), but you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.
2. A common argument for the death penalty is that it is an effective deterrent, because nobody wants to get executed. This is bullshit, because nobody commits a crime if they expect to get caught. The psychological evidence here is pretty clear - nobody is going to say "maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy" because they might get executed for it in fifteen years.
3. The death penalty is fundamentally incompatible with the fundamental assumption of Western criminal law, which is that it is worse to punish an innocent man than it is to let a guilty man go free. (This is why you are "innocent until proven guilty," and why you need to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" - if there's any doubt, you should be considered innocent in order to avoid any possibility of punishing an innocent person.) It stands to reason that this principle should be enforced especially rigorously the worse the punishment is. A death sentence is about as bad as a punishment gets. Despite this, even such enlightened societies as the United States have executed innocent men. Take the case of Leonel Torres Herrera, who was executed in 1993, despite the fact that he had evidence that could have seen him acquitted. We cannot take the risk of this happening even one more time.
So, let's have some reasoned, level, argumentative dialogue about this issue in here! Please, don't troll, flamebait, or otherwise be a prick.
2. A common argument for the death penalty is that it is an effective deterrent, because nobody wants to get executed. This is bullshit, because nobody commits a crime if they expect to get caught. The psychological evidence here is pretty clear - nobody is going to say "maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy" because they might get executed for it in fifteen years.
3. The death penalty is fundamentally incompatible with the fundamental assumption of Western criminal law, which is that it is worse to punish an innocent man than it is to let a guilty man go free. (This is why you are "innocent until proven guilty," and why you need to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" - if there's any doubt, you should be considered innocent in order to avoid any possibility of punishing an innocent person.) It stands to reason that this principle should be enforced especially rigorously the worse the punishment is. A death sentence is about as bad as a punishment gets. Despite this, even such enlightened societies as the United States have executed innocent men. Take the case of Leonel Torres Herrera, who was executed in 1993, despite the fact that he had evidence that could have seen him acquitted. We cannot take the risk of this happening even one more time.
So, let's have some reasoned, level, argumentative dialogue about this issue in here! Please, don't troll, flamebait, or otherwise be a prick.
