Do I agree with the death penalty? Short answer, no. Long answer. If you change the question to ask do you agree with a death penalty? Or What would you change in the death penalty to make it a deterrent? Then my response changes.
The death penalty in most states has some type of phrasing that says the crime must be heinous and absolute.
First let’s dispense with all the illogical claims. It is not cheaper to house a person for life than to execute them. Unless you pay both sides a phenomenal fee for the ten years the person waits on death row. In most cases that is not the case.
Secondly, for those who believe the prisoner would suffer more being incarcerated may be true but then what is the answer to the death penalty is cruel and unusual since it does not involve years of misery as you suggest. Never understood the logic, pretending to be caring by making you suffer more????
Thirdly, for those of you who believe the logical fallacy that years after the execution they find that the person was innocent because a new technology does not put him at the scene of the crime. Just because there is no DNA on the scene does not exonerate a person.
Fourthly, for reasons unknown when I ask one’s opinion on the death penalty the phrase “eyewitness testimony is unreliable” Hello!? I don’t see how that relates to my question.
Fifthly, and this is cruel ( suspect because of years of dealing with death row killers)I would drag them outside immediately after the sentence is handed down and publicly dispatch them, sell tickets to improve education or a woman’s shelter or help the homeless or mentally ill. Appeals would be a small window between verdict and sentencing.
As a forensic neuropsychologist I have been on many death row cases. In fact, I made friends with several. Even got Christmas cards until they were no longer able to send them. In all my cases everyone charged was admittedly guilty. I have one case right now where I refuse to testify for the defense because they got the guy off death row, set him free and he killed again. In my original report, I mentioned that his attorney did not display a spirited defense (many of these appointments are pitifully paid, in fact the attorneys are obligated to put in their time if they expect other court appointments). Because of my mention that the defense attorney did not do adequate work I am being asked to give testimony to possibly get this guy off death row again. I didn’t want him free the first time.
A win win situation in most criminal cases would be that if the client loses both he and the attorney do time, of course to be fair the attorney should do less time.
The logic that a person or persons have been killed, families ruined, futures lost can be compared to the punishment to the perpetrator astonishes me.
This week two death penalty cases are on the table. One is a slam dunk, the other will end in life as enough haze was cast to make a life imprisonment sufficient.
Maybe the 31 years of testing criminals, working with attorneys and counseling those left behind has hardened me. Either use the psychological principles of immediate and public execution or get rid of the death penalty. But don’t tell me it doesn’t work. Just look at your response to my suggestion.
We send brave young men to their death in wars the country begs to end but we fight to keep those alive who take life so readily. Is that a logical fallacy?
You want to end a war send the politicians into the front lines.