> I spent about two days monitoring Yahooo chat list on
> the William's case to get a gist of what people think
> about it. Besides the volumes of unspeakably hateful
> bile spewed by both sides - which left quite an
> unpleasant aftertaste - some people were actually
> giving reasons why they support death penalty. Among
> these reasons, the most frequently quoted (not based
> on any scientific count):
>
> - retribution for a heinous crime
> - certitude or finality of the penalty
> - justice that need to be served...
>
> It is quite clear that death penalty
> fulfills some deep emotional need for closure, safety
> and certitude which the opposing argument do not even
> begin to address. In fact, I found the opposing
> argument rather weak, based on not generally accepted
> or questionable assumptions. I may also add that the
> need for closure, safety and certitude seems to be a
> response to emotional distress caused by the heinous
> nature of the crime....
>
> What is more, the opponents must take into account the
> emotional needs that make people support death penalty
> - their fears, their sense of imbalance caused by
> heinous crimes, their need for certitude, justice and
> closure - and provide adequate answers to those needs.
> Mere regurgitating of religious beliefs or
> conspiratorial theories that no rational person takes
> seriously does not seem like a winning strategy.
I take them into account: (1) their fears are unfounded, ridiculous, and usually racist; (2) the victim's sense of imbalance caused by heinous crimes and their need for certitude, justice, and closure is not a legitimate penological consideration. Victims are not the plaintiffs in criminal cases, the people are. When the desires and needs of victims takes precedence, vigilantism--and hence injustice--results. Anbody will do, and due process flies out the window.
The argument against the death penalty is a simple one, not religious and not conspiratorial: rulers don't get to execute their victims.