Capital punishment. The public support for this can vary by 20% merely from the wording of a survey. It does not fit the left-right divide as cleanly as most issues, and for that reason people are somewhat allowed to express an opinion over it without being immediately dubbed a fascist. The war of opinion is fought on social, financial, and moral lines, and there appears to be a variety of opinions within each of those categories. Such a contentious issue is surely worthy of a real conversation. Should the United States follow the path of many other Western republics and ban it, or should we maintain, perhaps change, the system? Since people often reach different conclusions across the three arguments, I will discuss each independently.
The first argument is the least impactful. The social argument against capital punishment stems primarily from the fact that most of the developed world has shifted away from it, limiting accepted methods or abolishing the death penalty altogether; nobody is quartered and drawn anymore, for instance. This reflects that social pressure has indeed caused many countries to alter their traditional practices, and therefore the United States should continue down that path and outlaw it fully (or so the detractors argue). Supporters of capital punishment consider this entirely irrelevant. Few minds are ever changed by this argument, one way or another, because few people set much store in it.
If the last argument was about ethos, the moral debate is purely pathos. People take a plethora of positions on this. Many people are influenced by religious beliefs, but this has no decisive impact (some Christians believe that killing is wrong and only God should punish; others argue that biblical precedence confirms it). People who are against it generally argue that there is a great inherent value to human life that should not be violated by execution, regardless of crime. Others oppose the death penalty because they actually want to increase the suffering of the individual, and they believe that life in prison is a harsher punishment. On the other hand, supporters of the death penalty find the idea of financially supporting murderers and child rapists in prison to be an unconciable notion, and they would rather see such criminals die. Another factor to consider is the risk of executing an innocent, who unlike a prisoner, cannot be released; this causes many to balk. The great irony is that people’s moral positions on capital punishment often contradict their beliefs about abortion or even meat consumption. Most people’s beliefs on the death penalty are primarily built on their moral attitudes, as humans are emotionally driven creatures. Furthermore, moral beliefs are based on lifelong experience and cornerstone worldviews, and are therefore exceedingly difficult to change. This is why the wording of a survey can have such an impact on opinion: it comes down to what emotional strings politicians pull.
The last battleground is not quite as powerful as the second, but it is nonetheless powerful, and it is also considerably more malleable. To complete the rhetorical set, the fiscal argument is rooted in logos. Ultimately, this argument is generally independent from the other two, with minor exceptions. The fiscal debate concerns the monetary cost to society: is the death penalty cheaper than life sentencing? That is a fine question, and unfortunately it lacks a clear answer. Both fiery online personalities and late night show hosts can parade around a very legitimate-looking set of data to prove their point, but both harness deception. The reality is that death penalty trials cost considerably more than life sentence prosections, as the stakes are considered to be higher than life sentences. Detaining death row prisoners is also more expensive per year. The costs vary greatly from state to state, with Oklahoma seeing only a $110,000 difference in case costs, while Maryland has a discrepancy exceeding $1,000,000. The execution itself is relatively cheap; the legal process adds the cost. One major factor to consider is the duration of the life sentence. For a sentence of only 15-20 years, it is generally cheaper to imprison someone than hold them on death row for 5 years. However, in a death row case which is resolved in under 2 years, the cost of imprisonment for 30+ years is definitively higher. Essentially, the argument of cost is so heavily dependent upon the state, the nature of the case, and the alternative punishment, that both John Oliver and Alex Jones are equally inaccurate. The cost is a debate unto itself; ultimately, people just cherry pick whatever data suits their pre-existing moral stance so they can pretend to be logically driven.
In conclusion, the best solution is likely a compromise based on a full understanding of the issue. The death penalty can be improved so as to reduce cost and moral concerns, but ultimately the debate itself will never be fully settled as it hinges upon individual moral compasses. To abolish it outright disregards all nuance, just as having the death penalty for any murder case would also disregard context. It should also be handled at the more local or state level than a national level, in order to better reflect diverging state costs and cultural norms.
https://thereformedphilosopher.com/2019/09/24/a-brief-biblical-case-for-capital-punishment/
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs/summary-of-states-death-penalty
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/30/virginias-lethal-injection-costs-set-to-skyrocket-/
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Is_the_death_penalty_more_expensive_than_life_in_prison
I knew the debate regarding capital punishment was quite complicated, but I did not realize how many sides to the debate there actually are. I always figured people based their views on the debate around their moral views, as you stated in the second argument. I did not think people actually took into account the cost of having the death penalty or social pressure to just outlaw it. For the last argument, you would think the death penalty would be less costly than life sentence, but it actually is not. I found this incredibly informational and definitely helped to further shape my views on the debate. On a related note, I love how you included ethos, pathos, and logos into each argument. I really think it enhanced each point across. Going back to the moral argument of it, I really like how you included “The great irony is that people’s moral positions on capital punishment often contradict their beliefs about abortion or even meat consumption.” To think about it, it really is true. I know many people who are against the death penalty because it is “taking the life of another” yet consume a great amount of meat in their everyday lives.