tcampen,
in order to prevent getting lost in irrelevant tangents, I will try to summarize what I have been and am discussing at this point (and what I haven´t and am not discussing).
I think the OP gave a pretty good list of arguments pro and contra death penalty (some better, some worse, but oh well).
You entered the thread saying:
I think there is another argument for the death penalty not listed in the OP:
So I was expecting an argument for the death penalty.
You went on explaining:
There are some offenses so great that the the ultimate punishment of death is justified.
This goes from the position that the punishment should fit the crime, and that some crimes are so great that the only just punishment for the offender is to give up his life.
When the whole principle of justice is that the punishment fit the crime, I am not offended by the notion that a man who brutally rapes and tortures a child for several days before panfully murdering her is deserving of the death penalty - in principle.
My objection was not directed at the idea that a gradation in punishment is a good idea, nor that therefore logically there has to be a highest punishment, but specifically at non-sequitur that therefore the death penalty must be the highest punishment. It simply doesn´t follow. With the same structure of the argument one could as well argue for any other punishment - out of the conceivable range of punishments - as the highest acceptable punishment.
Now, in your defense I have to admit that the keyterm in your argument was "I am not offended" - so formally it isn´t even an argument but merely a description of your feelings. (Not that I think your feelings don´t count or something, but they aren´t actually an argument because they don´t allow for a discussion).
Thus, the only appropriate response would probably have been to also describe my personal feelings, saying "but
I am offended by this idea", agree to disagree and call it quits.
Suppose a man is upset that his wife is cheating on him. He gets a gun and shoots her as she returns home from work. Suppose we know it's a one time thing, and it will never happen again, so isolating the man for the community's protection is not an issue. Should we just issue the man a fine and be done with it? Or should there be a consequence to his actions? Prison? For how long? And Why?
These questions would make for a pretty interesting discussion, and I would be glad to discuss them with you in another thread (I am going on a one week vacation tonight, though). However, I don´t think that (no matter what my answers would be) they will help this discussion getting back on track. Au contraire.
If you think that a particular answer to your question helps to establish the death penalty (of all conceivable punishments) as the highest acceptable, feel free to hypothetically give this answer on my behalf and then make your point.
The point is that graduated sentences are based on a building continuum of responses. Fines for speeding, a few days in jail for a second petty theft, a few years in prison for a residential burglary of an occupied dwelling, a few more years for armed robbery, etc. We get to a point where the Constitution allows for the death penalty for certain qualifying offenses. There are a whole list of crimes that get prison without possibility of parole. But what do you do when you go several notches higher on the crime scale, like multiple murders, or torture and rape before a brutal murder. There are time when the ultimate punishment fits the crime.
Again: the reasonability gradation of punishment hasn´t and isn´t disputed.
The question is: "Why should the death penalty (of all conceivable punishments) be accepted as the ultimate punishment?", and all I can see you bringing up in support are statements that come down to "Because I feel it should".
I understand some have the postion that life without parole should be the ultimate punishment, but I think the loss of liberty alone does not always address the gravity of the crime.
Interestingly at this point you restate the thread question and simply state your opinion. How does this allow for a discussion?
That was my very point of criticism: While the OP listed discussable logical arguments, your additional argument went back to "This is how I feel." without even trying to rationalize your feelings.
The U.S. Constitution won't allow for such,
I think there is not much discussion about
what the status quo
is in the United States of America. Then again, this is neither the thread question nor a relevant point for the question we are discussing.
although I do appreciate your creativity.
Well, a crucial point in your argument was that the death penalty should be applied because it´s the highest punishment conceivable - thus I think investigating whether it is really the highest punishment conceivable is in order.
I don´t know why that earns me a sloppy reference to my creativity, as opposed to a serious discussion.
Why should we accept imprisonment of a single day for a terrible crime even when we're convinced the perpetrator will not reoffend?
Very interesting question, and I would love to hear your argument why we should. However, I fail to see how it makes a case for the death penalty as the highest acceptable punishment of all conceivable punishments.
Is there such thing as accountability?
I don´t think there is such a thing as accountability. I think there is a concept of
holding people accountable, and that´s by and large a synonym for sentence/fine/punishment. Since the idea of punishment in general has not been disputed so far (although that would make for an interesting discussion, as well), the concept of holding people accountable hasn´t either.
That's fine, and I respect that. I'm not saying I'm some fan of the death penalty. I'm just saying that there are certain crimes where I am not offended by it as a just punishment.
I respect that as your personal feeling, but beyond that I don´t know how to discuss your feelings.
Not to say "eye for an eye", but why would life in prison be a just response for a serial killer with a dozen victims?
The question "What do we mean when saying 'justice'?" is also a very interesting one, and it would make for an interesting thread. In fact, I think I made such a thread some while ago.