Locutus of Bored wrote:
IF the death penalty wasn't unequally applied against minorities, the less educated, and the poor...
IF the death penalty wasn't more expensive than life imprisonment...
IF the death penalty was part of consistent nationwide sentencing guidelines and didn't vary by state to state...
IF the death penalty actually served as an effective deterrent against crime...
IF the death penalty was only applied to those who were guaranteed beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty...
Then I still would be opposed to capital punishment because it's hypocritical, illogical, and morally wrong to punish murder with state sanctioned murder.
Yeah, I think that about sums up almost all of my concerns.
Couldn't one argue that warfare is essentially a form of state-sponsored murder, and one that seems to get far more of a free pass than the death penalty?
Well, I view warfare as national self-defense. I think it would be wrong to resort to warfare solely to avenge a past wrong if there's no chance of future harm. But self-defense is justified homicide.
Mr. Laser Beam wrote:
The way I look at that is, murder is always illegal, so there can never be "state-sponsored" murder. Killing that is allowed under the law cannot, by definition, be illegal, therefore it's not murder.
Well, it's not quite that simple because that's fairly tautological. However, you're correct that it is homicide, but not murder. Homicide with a justification or excuse is not supposed to be murder. The problem is the legal carveout is one that, if done by anyone else, would be murder. Vigilante murder is still murder. Lynching is still murder. If the law carved these outs, almost everyone would think the law was wrong. However, the state carves this one out for itself and people accept it. It can still be hypocritical even if it might be technically correct.