Innocent Executions/Arguments For

[JR]

Hey Guys, great site here.

I'm doing a paper and I need 5 arguments FOR the Death Penalty. I have a couple so far being that An innocent person has never been proven to be executed, the deterrence factor, and I need a few other good ones with points backing them.

The main one I'm having trouble finding articles/sources on is the innocent person never being executed. I believe it's true, I just cannot find anything other than a few lines on it, does anyone have anything substancial on this?

Also if anyone has good arguments let me know. Thanks for all your help.

[Anony+]

JR said:

The main one I'm having trouble finding articles/sources on is the innocent person never being executed. I believe it's true, I just cannot find anything other than a few lines on it, does anyone have anything substancial on this?

The reason why you're having a problem finding anything substantial proving that no innocent has been executed is because you can't prove something's nonexistence. It's not up to the pro movement to prove that no innocent has ever been executed. We have already done our jobs by having them found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. We've satisfied our burden. It's the burden of the anti movement to prove that an innocent HAS been executed.

I guess the best way to "prove" that no innocent has been executd is by reciting the facts of the crimes that earned the inmates their spot in the death chamber. That's proof enough, until someone else shows otherwise.

Allison

[Donnie]

JR said:

Hey Guys, great site here.

I'm doing a paper and I need 5 arguments FOR the Death Penalty.

1. The primary reason for using the death penalty for murder is the pursuit of justice. Not the accomplishment of justice, but the pursuit of justice. In the case of murdfer, it is not practicable to provide justice. Even if the murderer were to die at the same time as his victim, it would still be unjust for the victim and the murderer would have gained an unfair advantage. That is because, before the murder, each party was entitled to all their rights and neither had the right to take the life of the other. So when the murderer stirikes, he takes something that cannot be restored. Normally a murderer survives the murder. At that moment the murderers unfair advantage over the victim begins to grow. Every second that the murderer lives, the injustice becomes greater. Executing the murderer is the only thing that stops the murderers advantage and the injustice from increasing. So that is one way that the use of the DP is the pursuit of justice. IF you set that aside though and look at the immediate results of the murder, injustice still exists. The murderer is alive and the victim is deaqd. There are only two ways to pursue justice for that inequality. One would be to bring the victim back from the dead, that would place both parties on equal footing from that moment on. If nothing else were done at that point, an injustice would still exist in favor of the murderer, but it would be a smaller injustice. But that remedy is impossible. The only other way to place both parties on an equal footing is to execute the murderer. That is the closest practicalbe approach to justice. It is only a pursuit of justice though, because the murderer still gained at the expense of the victim.

2. Certain incapacitation. An executed murder cannot assault or murder any more victims. All other practicable forms of incapacitation keep people at risk of harm from the murderer.

3. Deterrence. The use of the death penalty saves the lives of people who might otherwise have been killed by potential murderers. That is also a significant benefit for the potential murderer who is deterred. There is no doubt of the deterrent effect. The only question is how many lives are saved each year. Professor Cass Sunstein is one of the most liberal authors and commentators in the world. Yet, even he recognizes the value of deterrence.

aei-brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=922

There are several studies that have tried to pin sown the number of lives saved by each execution. It is on the order of 10 per execution. Those studies are hard to follow because of the difficulty of measuring things that didn't happen and due to the number of known and unknown variables.

A simpler way to see it is to look at the two states that are most representative of the two positions. Michigan and Texas. Michigan was the first US state to abandon the use of capital punishment, in 1846. It has not used the death penalty since then. The other state is Texas, as it has used the death penalty the most since it was again allowed by the US Supreme Court in 1976.

The murder rates of each state may be viewed here. First you will see the raw numbers, you have to scroll down to see the rates.

Texas:
www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

Michigan:
www.disastercenter.com/crime/micrime.htm

3. Longer imprisonment for murderers who are not executed. If the most just sentence available for murder is execution, then the threat of that penalty can be used to gain longer sentences, including LWOP for less heinous murders. Related to this is quicker closure of muder cases. In exchange for avoiding execution, many murderers will tell police the location of the murder victims' bodies.

4. Redemption of murderers. When faced with their imminent demise, muderers have a strong incentive to face the reality of their crimes and cleanse their conscience.

5. Comfort for the friends and families of the murder victim. As long as the murderer is alive, we all know that there remains the possiblity that the murderer will will escape or be released. Often murderers threaten friends and family members of the victim.

6. Elimination of the evil influence of living murderers.

[Donnie]

JR said:

I'm doing a paper and I need 5 arguments FOR the Death Penalty. I have a couple so far being that An innocent person has never been proven to be executed, the deterrence factor

The fact that an innocent has never been accidentally executed is not an argument in favor of the death penalty. It is a counnter to the false argument that the death penalty should be abolished because someday an innocent person might be accidentally executed. For example, if three years ago 2,000 pedestrians were killed by automobiles and two years ago 1,800 pedestrians were killed by automobiles, that is not an argument in favor of using automobiles.

[Donnie]

The information below was posted by RED on the main board. The commentary at the link might fit your needs.

This is one of the best articles (perhaps the best) that I've ever seen regarding the issue of innocence and the death penalty.

bilges.blogspot.com/2005/12/deadly-innocence.html

Love, RED