Mr Awe wrote:
I don't have a problem with it ethically for criminals who are guilty of horrendous crimes as long as they get the full and fair due process, which is quite lengthy and expensives.
However, as a practical matter, I don't think it works to well. It's been shown to not be a deterant. It costs more and ties up more of the legal system. Plus, the stress it places on the jury can cause problems like we just saw in the Jodi Arias trial.
So, ethically, it's all right in some cases but practically not really worthwhile.
It can never be ethically right, sure some crimes can bring out the worst in us, i.e. That the perpetrator sould be executed, but that is our emotions talking.
But as has already been pointed out wrongful execution can occur. i.e a person who was found guilty but was later found to be innocent.
No moral or ethically or in fact any argument can get around the fact that an innocent person could be found guilty even of a horrendous crime and executed only for it to be discovered later that they were innocent.
The question is how many innoncents are we willing to be executed?, the correct answer is of course none.
How would pro-capital punishment supporters feel if one of their loved ones was tried, found guilty, went through the appeals process, and was executed only for new evidence to turn up later proving their innocene. WOuld they still support the death penalty?