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.
Sorry, but you can't decide for me what is ethically right.
However, all I'm doing is breaking the components down between ethics and pragmatism.
For me, it is ethically OK to execute someone who is guilty of a heinous crime and has gotten a full and fair due process of the low.
However, it's the pragmatic problems with implementing it in our justice system that dissuade me from its use. I mentioned some of them, but, a huge one is the possibility of an innocent person being convicted.
So, I'm against the death penalty, but not because I think it's unethical to execute someone who truly is guilty of a heinous crime.