Never say that. Killing is killing is killing is killing. The money it costs to lock someone away in prison easily covers the spiritual, emotional and legal debt of a misappropriation of justice or the act of killing itself.
Look:
* The death penalty is killing. All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong. According to Victor Hugo: «Que dit la loi? Tu ne tueras pas! Comment le dit-elle? En tuant!» ("What does the law say? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing!").
* The death penalty is claimed by some to be a violation of human rights primarily Article 3 and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some also assert that it violates the "natural rights" laid out by 17th-century English philosopher John Locke who set out many of the foundations of American law. The American Declaration of Independence also includes the "right to life" as the first listed of the natural rights. While those against capital punishment might stick behind this as an irrevocable right, as protection from abuse is the basis of such rights, those for the practice may claim that the right was forfeit by the seriousness of the crime.
* Torture and cruelty are wrong. Some executions are botched, lethal injection in the US having the highest rate according to Amnesty International. This is often due to the fact that qualified medical professionals are prohibited from taking part. This leads to unqualified staff often taking extreme measures such as cutting into the arms of prisoners when they have been unable to locate a vein in lethal injection procedures. This undoubtedly causes those executed to suffer extended pain. Even those who die instantly suffer prolonged mental anguish leading up to the execution. Other procedures including the Electric chair, Cyanide gas and Hanging are rarely fast or effective processes and are not designed to minimize pain and suffering.
* Criminal proceedings are fallible. Many people facing the death penalty have been exonerated, sometimes only minutes before their scheduled execution. Others have been executed before evidence clearing them is discovered. While criminal trials not involving the death penalty can also involve mistakes, there is at least the opportunity for those mistakes to be corrected. This has been particularly relevant in cases where new forensic methods (such as DNA) have become available. Since 1973, 119 people in 25 USA states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
* Within US court proceedings some low-income defendants end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are distinctly mediocre. Opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage. However, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have publicly supported the idea of using the French inquisitorial system in capital cases, instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue. In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected (this system has since become obsolete in the particular state in question as capital punishment was declared unconstitutional in 2004, see List of individuals executed in New York).
* As there is the possibility of executing an innocent person, there is often an extended system of judicial appeals. The cost of these appeals will often exceed that of keeping a prisoner captive for his natural life. [9]
* In the US the race of the person to be executed can also affect the likelihood of the sentence they receive. Death-penalty advocates counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present. A recent study showed that just 44% of Black Americans support the death penalty. [10]
* It can encourage police misconduct. For example, the documentary film The Thin Blue Line describes a case in the late 1970s in which an innocent man, Randall Adams, was framed by the Dallas County police department for the murder of a police officer because they knew the more likely suspect, David Harris, was still a minor and thus ineligible for the death penalty.
* The death penalty is not a deterrent; in the US recent studies do not support the view that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. [11]. It is also argued that anyone who would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that would not be stopped by any punishment. This argument is typically supported by claims that those states, which have implemented the death penalty, recently have not had a reduction of violent crime. A stronger variant of this argument suggests that criminals who believe they will face the death penalty are more likely to use violence or murder to avoid capture, and that therefore the death penalty might theoretically even increase the rate of violent crime. [12].
* Some people argue that the death penalty brutalises society, by sending out the message that killing people is the right thing to do in some circumstances.
* It is claimed that the death penalty psychologically harms the executioners, in some cases contributing to "Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress", and that even when this does not occur, killing a helpless person in a situation in which the executioner is not in danger may harm the executioner in other ways, such as decreasing his or her sense of the value of life. The suggested conclusion is that when capital punishment is not absolutely necessary to defend society, society has no right to ask executioners to risk their own mental health in such a way.
* It denies the possibility of rehabilitation. Some hold that a judicial system should have the role of educating and reforming those found guilty of crimes. If one is executed he will never have been educated and made a better person. A Christian variant of this argument woud be that no-one can place themselves beyond salvation, so society should never give up hope of rehabilitation.
* It is argued that in many countries there is greater public support for alternatives or simply public opposition to the death penalty. An International Gallup poll undertaken in 2000 found that 60% of western Europeans opposed the death penalty. In France, a TNS Sofres poll revealed that twenty years after abolition of capital punishment, 49% of respondents opposed reintroduction of the policy compared with 44% who wanted to reinstate capital punishment. In 2000, a poll in Germany found the percentage of West German’s in favor of capital punishment at just 23% the lowest level in Europe. For East Germans, polling found that just 37% of respondents were in favor of capital punishment in 2000. (Financial Times, August 22, 2003) A recent US study found that 41% of the public voted in favor of capital punishment, whilst a higher percentage of 44% voted against the death penalty when voters were offered alternative sentences. The most popular alternative to capital punishment being "life without parole plus restitution to the families of murder victims". [13]
* Capital punishment has been used politically to silence dissidents, minority religions (see Falun Gong) and activists. A major exponent of this is the People's Republic of China from which there are many reports of the death penalty being used for politically motivated ends. [14]
