Was attempting to have a discussion the other day about Capital Punishment (that old chesnut). Here's the deal:
Is it more ethical to keep someone alive in order for them to serve punishment for the rest of their life in a prison, or to simply execute them?
It seems to me that a large part of the argument against Capital Punishment is the idea that we do not have a right to take away someone's life (outside of war and self defence). However, the alternative - giving somebody life imprisonment - seems just as extreme. There has been a whole spate of programs on TV about the world's hardest prisons. Are these places actually helping? They are certainly not rehabilitating the offenders.
So the conclusion is (and the person with whom I had the discussion admitted this freely) that we keep them alive because 'death is too easy.' Call me naive, but I was under the impression that civilization and 1500 years of the English Judicial System came to more than simply physically retaliating in this way towards offenders.
There is the argument that the reason for the abandonment of Capital Punishment is due to the seculrisation of this (and other) countries. That is, because there is not that strong belief in the after-life, punishments dealt to offenders must be carried out in THIS lifetime rather than the next. Previously, had a horrific crime been committed than the person was sentenced to death, given the chance to repent then executed.
What do you guys think? Recent polls in this country seem to suggest that people DO want a return to Capital Punishment, the main argument against it being the devastation if/when a mistake is made and an innocent man is killed.