Death penalty
(incomplete)
Unused keywords:
Deterrence
Drug abuse
Currently, I support the death penalty (execution). This has been an unexamined view. My country implements it and I just took it for granted.
For
Instrumental
Intuition
If a criminal commits a very serious crime, then sufficient freedoms should be removed, to prevent him from being a threat to others.
The most notorious criminals might be so dangerous, that the only sufficient restraint for their actions is death.
Argument
- If a criminal is convicted of a very serious crime, and
- If he cannot be rehabilitated, and
- If other methods of restraint (e.g. imprisonment and hard labour) are infeasible,
- Then the state can fairly execute him.
Comments
This is a very demanding set of criteria. And some clarification is wanting...
- 2: Is it ever possible that someone cannot be rehabilitated? How would we know?
- 3: What makes other restraints 'infeasible'?
Miscellaneous
- Is punishment even wanted or justified? Or is the matter solely about restraint?
Why is vengefulness and retribution a thing? The practical goal is restraint, preventing the criminal from being able to threaten others again, at which point imprisonment should be sufficient. The point behind hard labour is usefulness, to fund the prison system and provide some societal benefit.
This is likely hard to imagine until I have a real situation, where someone has done me wrong, and I observe my intuition of what I want to be done to them.
- Could there be a line, that once crossed, makes no further tolerance and goodwill desirable?
Against
Keywords (3 possible views):
Human rights
Value of life
Errors
Irreversible
Political repression
Reconciliation
...