wrote:
> Jks:
>
> I am not an abolitionist. I would support the death penalty for types
> such as Henry Kissinger and other war criminals and criminals against
> humanity. After a proper trial with death-qualified counsel, due process
> up the wazoo, etc., of course. As the facts are, capital punishment is
> an (expensive!) excuse to kill minorities who kill whites. It is
> freakish, a violation of due process and equal protection, and racist to
> the core. We are not civilized enough to have it. jks
>
> WS:
>
> I agree. I have litle doubt that capital punihsment is often a form of
> racist revenge (albeit I can think of some deserving types on the death
> row too) - but so is much of our criminal justice system (e.g. drug
> laws). I also think that severity of punishment should be proportional
> to one's social position and the breech of public trust asscoated with
> crime. Thus not only war criminals, but also any leader who breeches
> public trust should be held to higher standards and punished more
> severely, which in certain circumstances may include capital punishment.
> But that is the issue of the application not the principle.
>
> My question is that why should one oppose the capital punishment in
> principle, rather than its application to a particular case or set of
> cases? I cannot see any reasons either for or againts it. I find the
> "hang them high" crowd is repulsive, but so are the death row inmates.
> At this point, I'd rather avoid taking sides on this issue, and do not
> particularly appreciate if someone forces the issue on me.
>
> Wojtek
And neither one of you is thinking this through. There are tons of reasons to be against capital punishment regardless of the social order.
The omlettes/eggs argument does not apply. It is one thing to kill in the heat of battle (say a revolution) when it is them or you. But if you have captured wrongdoers, and have the resources to imprison them and put them on trial, then killing them or not is a matter of choice; there is no argument from neccesity, no valid lesser evil argument to make. Any killing by a society lessons that society. It hardens and brutalizes that society , makes it more ready to use violence. The effect on the actual executioner is especially harsh. I doubt the people who kill prisoners on death rows end up better people for the experience. I think this is as true even for those killed Nazis after the WII following fair tirals.
It is one thing the to bear this price in the heat of battle or in the heat of revolution, or even in the heat of police pursuit of a dangerous killer, or in simple self-defense. If the choice is kill a killer or let the killer continue to murder, then the cost is worth bearing. (But it is a cost. Soldiers, even soldiers of "good wars" don't come out unscarred. Police, even after justified shootings suffer trauma.) To impose that cost when there is a reasonable alternative damages and brutalizes the society that imposes it. A society civilized enough to be trusted with a death penalty won't impose one.
I know there are pacifists on this list who would take this argument further. But I have stated my position and will leave it at that.