I support the death penalty in some cases. Cases in which the crime committed is sufficiently heinous or harmful to society as a whole (arsonists purposefully lighting bushfires on the hottest days of the year? They're potential mass murderers, no matter what path the fires take.), and especially in which there is little or no chance of rehabilitation. (More on that later)
Consider this example: An 11-year old boy murders his father's pregnant fiancee with a shotgun. The motive? Apparently, he was
jealous of her children. The murder was clearly premeditated, as he even used a pillow to dampen the sound of the blast.
Source [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.435ee54695f096e1c77c6fc27a19acd2.161&show_article=1]
Now, you can go ahead and call me barbaric if you like, but I just don't understand why anyone believes society owes anything to people who commit heinous crimes like these. Of course there are some cases where the perpetrator of a crime isn't fully responsible for what they did due to certain circumstances -- such as severe/ongoing mistreatment of the perpetrator by the victim, for a very simple example -- but there's no mention of such circumstances in the article. If there are such circumstances, they'll come out in the trial, I'm sure. But if this case is what it sounds like: cold blooded, premeditated murder for a petty reason, I feel this kid deserves the death sentence.
The way I see it, unless the kid is proven to be mentally disturbed in such a way that he's not entirely responsible for his actions, and that there's a decent possibility he can be rehabilitated, he has no place in a civilized society. Yes, I believe human life is precious, but as far as I'm concerned, he waived his right to live by taking that right from two others. It's not about revenge, it's simply about removing (preferably via as painless a method as is practically possibly) those who have proven they have no place in a civilized society. It's "taking out the trash", as much as I loathe to use that term in this context, the meaning is appropriate.
It's open to hideous, terrible abuse.
How is any other means of punishment less open to abuse? Capital punishment, like all forms of punishment, is a tool. It can be abused, and the fact that it's among the most powerful of such tools means that when it is abused the consequences are farther-reaching. But, like a person above me said, that's why safeguards are in place. That's why a person sentenced to death has years on death row to appeal their sentence. Wrongful conviction is terrible no matter the result, but truly, the consequences are more dire if the conviction results in a death sentence, which is why I believe it should only be employed in rock solid cases in which the evidence is overwhelming. Say, for example, that someone murders half a dozen people in a public place and dozens of witnesses can identify them, in addition to other evidence.
A common argument for the death penalty is that it is an effective deterrent, because nobody wants to get executed. This is bullshit, because nobody commits a crime if they expect to get caught. The psychological evidence here is pretty clear - nobody is going to say "maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy" because they might get executed for it in fifteen years.
It's true that some criminals believe they'll never get caught, but I can't honestly believe that the majority of them have never even considered the possibility of being caught or its consequences. There's a big difference between a criminal believing they'll get away with whatever they do and a criminal flaunting the law because they know their life won't be over if they get caught.
