Nienor SharkAttack wrote: |
I think there is a sort of contradiction in this paragraph: first you say that death is more human than a lifetime in prison, and then you say that criminals get a lifetime of greatly coveted things.
Yes, there is. It comes down to the person.
And then we should rather focus on getting everyone else these goods, rather than complaining about inmates having them.
Indeed we should, but it may be a long time before we succeed. In the meantime, there's no reason the worst criminals should go to the front of the ration line, so to speak.
I don’t think an organizational problem can justify killing people.
It can't, but it doesn't need to. The fact that the person committed a capital crime is sufficient justification for killing him. Keeping him alive in prison instead is (in intent, at least) an act of mercy. Commendable perhaps, but not imperative, especially when you can't afford it.
From what I’ve read, the USA puts an unusually high percentage of their population in prison. I’d say you look into that and do something about it, rather than saying the system requires you to kill people to make it work.
Correct, but again, there's no indication that this will change any time soon.
Also, with so many years on death row, I can’t see that capital punishment reduces overcrowding much.
I'd say the answer is to speed things up.
So because things aren't perfect, we shouldn't even try to do what's right?
Oddly, that's my response to many of the arguments against capital punishment.
Elaborate?
Many people object arguing that since the system isn't perfect, we shouldn't allow capital punishment at all.