> Maryland is about to execute a convicted murderer,
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/yahoo/bal-md.baker27nov27,0,6
> 30068.story?coll=bal-newsaol-headlines
>
> and that stirs some controversy and protests here.
> This prompted me to give the issue some thought (since
> it is usually low on my priority list) and share it
> with others. So here it is....
> The reason I do not support death penalty is more
> practical - this form of punishment unduly impedes the
> functioning of the justice system. First, because of its
> finality (which certainly has an appeal to its supporters),
> any mistake that leads to a wrongful conviction almost
> autimatically undermines the confidence in the legal system.
> Second, because it is such a contentious issue, the
> administration of justice - jury selection, jury
> deliberation, sentencing, appeals, and finally the execution
> - poses a heavy burden on the justice system, and saps its
> resources that could be employed more efficiently elsewhere.
> Therefore, I see this form of punishment as a detriment to
> efficient functioning of the justice system, and it only
> "advantage" over other forms of punishment - its finality -
> is more of a deteriment than an "advantage" to me.
I don't support the death penalty (or any other) because it holds the wrong people to account for the harm. Crime is caused by the ruling class (with the support of the upper and middle classes, i.e., the electorate), not criminals, who are simply the victims of the ruling class. Crime is a function of society, not individual choices. And the architects and keepers of the society should be accountable for all of it.
> At the same time, however, I generally do not side
> with the death penalty opponents and protesteres. As
> I see it, these people oppose the sentence because
> they see it as incompatible with their moral
> principles taken fundamentally (e.g. the
> aforementioned sanctity of human life). Therefore,
> their actions are a form of religious/ideological
> interference into the functioning of a secular state
> and a secular justice system.
>
> I find that unaacceptable. If someone was lawfully
> sentenced to whatever punishment the law permits in a
> due process, that sentence should be promptly carried
> out, regardless of moral, religious, or ideological
> feelings of some citizens. The only way to challenge
> that is to change the law through a democratic process
> so death penalty is no longer lawful. Demanding
> leniency for a lawfuly convicted criminal is in fact
> an attempt to subvert the concept of justice, and
> replace it with politics.
Law is religious/ideological, so I understand your position to be contradictory. That is, you support religious/ideological viewpoints so long as they are sanctioned by the ruling class (i.e., law) but deem those who oppose those viewpoints on their own religious/ideological grounds to be subversive. Which I suppose is true, but you are only saying (in a very round about way) that you support the ruling class and the law it creates (even going so far as to call such a monstrosity "justice"). You don't even give any actual reason for the support.
> Finally, I do not undertand why so many people waste
> so much energy on this issue. There are thousands if
> not millions of people in this country who
> unnecessarily die of preventable causes - lack of
> adequate health care, unsafe food and products,
> transportation-related accidents, not to mention violent
> crime - so preventing these deaths is a far more efficient
> use of time and energy than trying to spare a few convicted
> criminals from the gallows.
No death is more preventable or needless than an intentional killing by the State. It even tells us when and where it is going to do it. No State action is more egregious than when it intentionally kills its own citizens.