Regarding "Fallacy #1: Racism", one could alternately argue that justice is discriminatory on the basis of the skin color of the victim. The death penalty is less frequently applied to the murder of a Black victim than of a White victim. Justice values Black life less than White life. Beyond application of the death penalty, this applies to most other aspects of law enforcement, as Black neighborhoods may be abandoned by police patrols, thus doing nothing to prevent burglaries, etc. The causes are not just institutional prejudice but also very public denunciations of police for arresting too many Blacks for crime. Regarding "Fallacy #6: Pro-Life Consistency", the counterargument is a little too pat. There are advantages in having a governmental system that avoids death and sees its role as protecting life. There comes a new clarity to the abortion and mercy killing issues, for example. On the other hand, adoption of such a policy runs up into practical barriers that need to be dealt with. One is how would the government conduct war? Well, you would have to allow it, but now you have constructed an exception or caveat. Now exceptions can be constructed for any practical case, such as, is lethal force justified in personal self-defense? Where the death penalty fits in here and whether an exception can be created to allow it is a bit arbitrary. But, someone can make this argument against the death penalty and strive for a greater pro-life consistency. It is not an absolute argument (it is arbitrary) but that does not mean it cannot be appealing.
Anybody ever hear of the Greenlease kidnapping and murder? Little six year old Bobby Greenlease was kidnapped in September of 1952. Shot and killed within two hours the brain dead idiots then actually pulled off a $600,000 ranson. By the time they caught up with them a four days later they either lost $300K or it got "misplaced" by the St. Louis police department. Now, to the point. These morons BOTH got the gas chamber within 45 days of capture. Now, that, is my form of justice. Crime, trial, and punishment all within 60 days.
The lack of quick justice defuses the value of almost any punishment. The thought that the death penalty is just a couple of months away if a potential murder should go through with his plans must cause pause. I would like to see the question posed to either a supreme court justice or a university law professor that since most executions were conducted quickly prior to some year, does that mean every death sentence was wrong or unjust to that year? I think there is some devotion to an idea of a "perfect ideal trial" that constrains judges and lawyers from acting quickly. At some point in time, somebody came up with these ideas, but did not recognize that this "perfect trial" is not neccessarily to properly dispose of justice.
Impressive, but here's an even better one. February 15, 1933. Joseph Zangara fires at but misses president-elect Franklin D Roosevelt in a Miami motorcade. His shots hit Anton J Cermak, mayor of Chicago, and several others. March 6. Cermak dies. March 20. Zangara electrocuted (he had pleaded guilty and been found sane). Two weeks from the death of the victim to the death of the perp! There have been all sorts of rumors over the years that Zangara was put down quickly because he knew too much. About what, I'm not sure. In 1960 this incident was the subject of a two part "Untouchables" episode which later was made into a TV movie called "The Gun of Zangara:" http://imdb.com/title/tt0311238/combined
This is an interesting article. Thank you for posting it. I fundamentally disagree with practically every arguement in it, but it was an interesting read. The death penalty is wrong, because killing people is wrong. That is the sum and total of my argument, which is a purely moral one. I do not believe that anyone can find fault with it, and I think everyone agrees with the sentiment.
You are correct. However, there are cases of government sanctioned killing. In the extreme case, government can remove itself from conducting every form of death except war. Clauswitz says that war is caused by the defender starting to defend. Absent this, the invading power asserts its will over the invaded, and the prior government is supplanted. Thus the philosophy that the government cannot kill is also supplanted by a government of the invading power that does not share such a compunction. Therefore for a government that does not kill, to exist, it must be willing to kill. Thus, an exception is carved out, and a moral slope exists.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but I have always said that you have to respect the consistency of their views on the sanctity of life: They are as opposed to the death penalty as they are to abortion: to them killing is killing and it is wrong.
Clausewitz's views inspire a lot of antagonism, mostly because his books are so hard to read. There is also the objection to his rejection of moderation in war, as it is an essential element of war itself. This fails to note his explanation as to why moderation is nonetheless and necessarily pursued by civilized societies as a matter of practical policy. Similarly, it can be argued that civilized societies will, as a matter of practical policy, avoid war (and by extension, killing) in the first place. However, I accept your suggestion that there is a frailty in my position, especially around the issue of self-defence. This self-defence debate is irrelevant in the case of state-sanctioned murder (or the death penalty as it is also known). There is no case that the condemned man can still be an immediate threat to society as he is imprisoned.
If you will permit me the indulgence of considering the threat a condemned, imprisioned man might have on "government" as a substitution to "society", then there are cases. Basically it points to the benefits of regicide, the convience of the fact that Hitler took his own life and the inconvenience of the fact that Saddam Hussein has not. So long as Hussein is alive in prison, he remains a threat to the new government. A bold prison break followed by a regional uprising can constitute a significant threat to the government. The winner in such a situation is the entity (either the Baathists or the new government) most willing and able to assert force, basically to kill their enemies. This case would not apply for the United States since the English monarchy seems to have reconciled themselves to the lasting nature of our uprising.
Until the jail break takes place the threat is purely hypothetical. I can't kill a man in self-defence because he might attack me.